Back in graduate school, I read an article that I can’t find
again. Seems that years ago, someone did a piece on slavery in America. Not one
of the modern works being put out in schools during the Betsy DeVoss, era, the
ones concluding that slavery was simply a matter of guest workers migrating to
America in search of jobs. We may survive her and her supporters (some of which
our state produced) and we may not. Stay tuned.
No, this was a serious look. It tried, without trivializing
the horrors of “that peculiar institution” to present it in terms with which someone
who was not of African-American heritage could, at least to a minimal degree, empathize.
Of course the search was futile. Although there were those of European descent
who came to America as indentured servants or who volunteered once they were
here, the comparisons are miniscule. There was no compelling comparison.
The nearest the author(s) could find that approached the
lack of human rights, loss of individual freedom, death or corporal punishment
without representation, complete control over every waking moment, was … . Are
you ready?
The life of a sailor aboard a military ship in the days of
sail.
Please, again, don’t take this as a comparison in fact. It is
a comparison for contemplation. The most interesting thing was the implication
that slavery was a forced, brutal, and closely guarded affair requiring arms
and the aid of government to enforce. Oddly, some, not all, sailors chose the life
willingly refusing all others. They were the ones Joseph Conrad described as staying
at sea for fear that the earth would scorch their feet.” (paraphrase)
I only bring this up because of an article I ran across yesterday that examined the animosity that the working white-class has in America
for the working black-class, despite the fact that they have so much in common.
I live in rural state that “thinks poor” as much as it “is poor.”
For the last dozen or so statewide elections, the prevalent campaign strategy for some candidates is simply to mail out campaign ads with a picture of
Barack Obama on once side and a picture of their opponent on the other. If the opponent was male, the implications were merely designed to appeal to embedded racism. If the candidate was female, the
implications were more more horrifyingly meaningful.
Did it work?
Oh yes. Hordes of voters who enjoy 40-hour weeks, social
security, unemployment protection, fair labor standards, and, now, health care,
flocked to the poles to vote for candidates who support not one of those
benefits.
 |
| Just thinking … |
No comments:
Post a Comment