I Hope That People Can Finally Put Away Their Emotions
Here’s something you won’t know about unless it’s a part of your “lived experience”:
If you’re a race writer (you may also need to be black, I’m not sure), and mention the Atlantic slave trade for any reason, somebody will come into your comments to tell you one (or all) of the following:
a) slavery was a long time ago.
b) some Africans were also complicit in the slave trade.
c) white people have also been enslaved at various points throughout history.
Seriously, this happens often enough that I groan internally every time I need to refer to the slave trade in my writing.
In my article, Do Critical Race Theorists Know What Racism Is, I mention slavery simply to highlight how harmful the idea that one race is superior to another can be. There’s no blame, no complaining, no suggestion that white people today are complicit or bear any guilt. And yet several readers felt compelled to make each of the above points.
The conversation was preceded by a meandering exploration of the history of the Atlantic slave trade with another reader, that’s too long to include in this already fairly long post. So we pick things up at the point where Spike chimes in:
Spike:
I very much agree with everything you said in your article, but seeing how you react to a notion of Africans participating in trans-Atlantic slavery, I must ask: Are you saying that all these accounts are either inaccurate or outright lies?
https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/curious-history-slavery-west-africa
"As the demand for slaves grew, the Portuguese began to enter the interior of Africa to forcibly take captives; as other Europeans became involved in the slave trade, generally they remained on the coast and purchased captives from Africans who had transported them from the interior." -- source
Not only did some Africans play a role in the slave trade, some freed slaves became slave owners themselves when given the opportunity. As I’ve said many times, racism and bigotry and cruelty are human problems, not white people problems.
But while Spike assumed, quite reasonably I suppose, that my irritation was based on defensiveness about these facts, it was actually based on how often I see these same arguments.
Steve QJ:
but seeing how you react to a notion of Africans participating in trans-Atlantic slavery
No, I'm not reacting to the notion of Africans participating in the Atlantic slave trade. I know they did. I'm reacting to the idea that there's any kind of parity in culpability. I'm reacting to the fact that every time I mention the slave trade in an article, no matter how tangentially, somebody feels the need to rush into the comments to inform me that "AfRiCaNs SoLd OtHeR aFrIcAnS tOo!11!!".
You're the third person I'm having some variation of this conversation with in this article alone, simply because I mentioned the Atlantic slave trade once, without mentioning white people, in a single sentence of a 1200+ word article.
It's incredibly sad how many white people have subconsciously bought into this ridiculous idea of collective white guilt that they feel the need to make this point, so let's talk about it without talking about colour at all (though it's worth noting that I didn't talk about colour in the article either).
Around the fifteenth century, Portuguese colonisers travelled to Africa in search of riches. They found slavery already there, though slavery that was quite different to that which ensued in America. They used their vastly superior weaponry to steal resources and riches from the African people (who they viewed as savages) and also...persuaded them to capture members of other tribes for them. These Africans couldn't possibly have known what was waiting for the people they captured, but even if they did, they didn't exactly have a lot of options.
The Africans who were captured, many of them children, were then shipped off to various nations, including the US, for a lifetime of servitude that included their children and their children's children. That is, if they survived the trip. Who do you think is more culpable here? The Portuguese or the Africans?
Let's try some other examples.
Some Native American chiefs sold their lands (whilst barely understanding what "selling" meant), for beads and trinkets. Do you feel the need to explain that those Native chiefs were complicit in the massacre of the Native Americans and the steaing of their lands whenever somebody mentions it? I mean, technically it wasn't even stealing. They got paid after all...
Some Jews fought alongside the Nazis in WWII. Do you feel the need to mention this every time somebody mentions the Holocaust? After all, those Jews aided a war machine that killed millions of their fellow Jews and displaced God knows how many more. It wasn't just the Nazis who were at fault, right?
Hopefully you can see why I get frustrated with this when applied to the slave trade. And especially when, as I said, I mentioned it as a one line aside in an article that had nothing to do with slavery. What the hell are you defending? You are not responsible because you have a similar complexion to those who did these things. Don't buy into that nonsense.
Spike:
Thanks for clarification. I reacted only because I saw you arguing about it in the comments (that’s why I replied to your comment and not your article), and frankly the sole fact that many Africans were even part and parcel of trans-Atlantic slave trade was completely new to me literally few days ago (I'm more focused on pre-historic Near and Middle East and Mediterranean).
As for Native Americans, and just as a side note, IIRC e.g. Iroquois played some pretty nasty political opportunistic war games that had rather unfortunate impact on their enemy tribes. But I agree, the proportions of culpability in "sum total" are in both cases simply incomparable.
However, I think that these are the proverbial "skeletons in the closet" that must be sooner or later faced head on. Case in point -- and I'm glad you mentioned Jews -- me being (also) of Jewish ancestry taught me the hard way that a self-segregated community that considers itself to be better than thou and/or chosen by God is a surefire way to attract a lot of attention and not in a good way. And being (also) of Slavic ancestry, I always point out that there were two times as much Slavs killed in Holocaust than Jews. But yeah when looking at it through the lens of percentages, it was only a fraction of the whole population -- what a great way to relativize the value of human life, isn't it? And you should see the flak I get every time I even hint at the possibility of those undeniable facts (especially as I'm not a "pure blood" Jew). Nevertheless, the truth is completely worth it.
With all that being said, I feel neither responsible nor defensive. I have no reason to. I have also no clue why should be descendants of West Africans upset that their predecessors were involved in trans-Atlantic slave trade. Maybe it’s a black version of white guilt. I don’t know, I come from a Slavic society that was in forced (and complete) socio-economic thraldom for a little more than thousand years (this was ideologically rationalized on the tribal / cultural basis), and everyone knows the Jewish history. I have also no collaborators in family tree, so I don’t know how it feels to bear the burden of being a descendant of an oppressor. All in all, I want to have a historical overview that is as correct as possible. After all, things always happen in some context and, as they say, to know where one goes one has to know where one comes from. And anyone who closes their eyes before emotionally unpleasant (or inconvenient) facts promotes the attitude that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake.
Steve QJ:
And you should see the flak I get every time I even hint at the possibility of those undeniable facts
Yeah, I guess the question is, what are you hoping to achieve by hinting at these facts? Diminishing one atrocity by pointing to another is always going to sound kind of gross. Especially to the people who have a connection to that atrocity. As you say, it's very difficult not to hear it as relativising human life, or in this case, blame.
That might even be somewhat appropriate in a conversation where somebody is apportioning blame, but when an atrocity is simply mentioned, it speaks to a certain defensiveness, or a complete lack of empathy, to feel the need to pull out a historical scorecard.
Spike:
Well, in your comments you sounded as if African slavery had nothing (or very little) to do with trans-Atlantic slave trade. Which, according to those accounts I linked to, is pretty far from the truth. I'm also of the opinion that what is done is done. The question is, where we go from there. So, in regards to Holocaust particularly -- should Slavs now engage in the same histrionics that many Jews engage in (only of course times two, because, you know, the facts are facts and the numbers don't leave any wiggle room)? I say no and those Jews who promote said histrionics should stop too, and that's the exact opposite of what you imply I'm after. Forgive does not mean forget.
Steve QJ:
that's the exact opposite of what you imply I'm after.
No, I'm genuinely unsure what you're after. That's why I asked the question. I'm not implying anything.
All I'm saying is that it's not very empathetic (to put it mildly) to say to a Jew who feels pain at what they lost in the Holocaust, "well, did you know the Slavs had it twice as bad?"
I'm not sure what histrionics you're referring to, but yeah, the Holocaust really wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure lots of people still feel the pain of it in a very real, very personal way.
If you don't, great. I'm glad. But why do you feel like you need to decide what the correct level of emotion about it should be? I ask again; what are you hoping to achieve?
Spike:
To answer your question -- I probably hope that people can finally put away their emotions when dealing with rational stuff which dealing with practical socio-economic problems indubitably is. That also includes not obfuscating the history or leaving out inconvenient facts that may dilute the "righteous indignation" which, if left unchecked, gets channeled into anger and finally outright hate. It's a vicious cycle. So, to sum it up -- in this case I'm perhaps after putting the utterly unproductive "victim mentality" to rest.
As for histrionics -- just try to critically approach anything even remotely Jewish. If you are Jewish you will be labeled as self-hating, if you are not Jewish you will be labeled as anti-Semite. Complete stalemate, no discussion possible. And yes, it's because emotions run rampant and people basically want revenge, not a solution.
But if I was able to “overcome my demons", anyone can do the same.
Steve QJ:
I probably hope that people can finally put away their emotions when dealing with rational stuff
Hahaha, good luck my friend! I think you're onto a seriously losing battle there. You should also maybe consider the battles you're fighting.
What happens if you convince this histrionic person of the error of their ways? Does anything change? Are you planning to do this with each of the histrionic people in the world? Or is this really about you getting to be right? (I only ask because I know this instinct very, very well in myself.)
If you want to change people's minds--and I think you're right to want to, I want to as well--simply being right isn't nearly enough. Statistics or a history lesson aren't going to change the mind of somebody who's emotional. You must have already discovered that numerous times.
I mentioned empathy in an earlier reply, and it's the piece that I think so many people on the rationalist side and on the histrionic side of these debates are missing. Very few of us truly "overcome our demons". Most of us just swap them for new ones which we decide are superior. And we prove they're superior by winning arguments with "the other side".
But if your goal is to have the other person go away with something to really think about, instead of a reason to write you off as an evil, unthinking, self-hating monster, you need to be able to demonstrate not only that you're right, but also that you understand where they're coming from. That's the sweet spot.
Spike:
Beautifully put and spot on. I would only add that not even demonstrating that understanding of where a person is coming from guarantees that that person will not write you off. But I would also say that you already know that too. In any case, thanks for indulging me ;)
Here’s the thing; everybody believes they’re thinking logically. Everybody thinks they’re seeing the whole picture. And when they’re emotional, at least in the moment, everybody feels that their emotional response is justified.
I’m constantly trying to bear this fact in mind (with varying degrees of success). It’s a rare mind that will be dislodged from an emotional position by a purely rational argument.
Instead, changing people’s minds begins with understanding why they hold their current position. What are the logical and emotional components that make it appealing? What are the experiences and assumptions that have led you to different places? What ideas do both of you need to let go of to understand the other’s way of thinking?
Navigating these questions is always more persuasive than being correct. After all, getting somebody on side is often as simple as demonstrating that you understand where they’re coming from. Even if it’s just recognising that it’s annoying to constantly counter defensiveness about slavery…
I'm glad that you wrote this. I am guilty of having mentioned the things you shine a light on (African complicity, age old non-race-based slavery, etc.). Yea, that does have a bad feel.
In keeping with the title of this commentary, thinking about it, it was likely an emotional response to the ubiquitous "Dear white people" articles telling me that I must acknowledge the evil of whiteness with an implicit me being evil because of my membership in the white tribe. Not explicit but obviously implicit. I'll refrain from a rant on monoliths.
Trying to not let my inner Marine speak here, I'll just say that I do get tired of that crap. <-- emotion! It's not an excuse, I'll try to hold that stuff in check in the future. Thank you.
With regard to that being aimed at you, people do tend to latch on to one small thing not in the context of the larger thing when they don't like the larger thing but have no adequate response to it. Again emotion - frustration about a valid challenge to their cherished "truth."
“ you need to be able to demonstrate not only that you're right, but also that you understand where they're coming from.”
Perfectly said. So difficult to achieve.
I know you’ve taken a ton of flack for holding to this position, Steve, particularly when you seek to understand where all people are coming from. I’ve realized some important truths that helped me process some truly awful racially-based incidents in my life by reading your thoughtful, persuasive, gentle, wry, understanding commentary. Thank you, as always, for your perseverance.