[Vision2020] Affirmative Action
DonaldH675@aol.com
DonaldH675@aol.com
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:49:35 EST
--part1_1e.a8b7c4b.2b84ad2f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Visionaries.
One of the most difficult issues for white people to acknowledge is that the=
=20
color of their skin confers upon them a privileged status. This is=20
particularly true in the United States and the Western European countries=20
with colonial histories. In my experience, those who complain most bitterly=
=20
about the unfairness of affirmative action legislation base their positions=20
on the mythology that they, and their families, are (were) free of the taint=
=20
of racial prejudice. (This myth is not dissimilar in type to the argument=20
adopted by the majority of French and German people following W.W.II. That=20
is, all French people were really in the underground resistance - certainly=20
they never collaborated; and all Germans really hated Hitler and tried to=20
protect Jews.) I wish that I could say with such self righteous certainty=
=20
as Don Kaag that my family never oppressed anyone. Sadly, that is not the=20
case. And indeed, if Don Kaag were to do a little research on the ancestor=20
he so proudly claims, Gen. George H. Thomas, he would discover that those=20
pesky slave owners, (which were never our ancestors) in fact were - although=
=20
his family clearly operated on a much grander scale than mine. The followin=
g=20
link <http://www.aotc.net/Life1.htm> leads the reader to a contemporary=20
biography of General Thomas, (written in 1872). Page 17 includes the=20
following passage (the words "he" and "his" refer to General Thomas):
"His departure from Texas brought to him a perplexing problem the dispositio=
n=20
of a slave woman, whom he had purchased in Texas when it was not practicable=
=20
to hire a servant. This problem was not of difficult solution for an ordinar=
y=20
slave owner; but with Major Thomas it was otherwise, since, to use his own=20
words, he "could not sell a human being." He had been accustomed to the=20
service of slaves all his life, and felt no scruples in purchasing one, when=
=20
in need of a servant. But when the question of the sale of a slave became a=20
practical one, the nature of the transaction from this point of view was so=20
repulsive to him that it could only be answered in the negative, and althoug=
h=20
it was against his pecuniary interest to take this woman with him to=20
Virginia, he resolved to do it. He was a Southern man, at this time, so far=20
as to introduce, by purchase, a slave woman into his family where she would=20
always be treated kindly; but he revolted at the possibilities of misery and=
=20
cruel treatment which inhered in the system of American slavery. He was not=20
then an abolitionist in the northern significance of that offensive term, an=
d=20
doubtless he would have claimed, that, as a political matter, the institutio=
n=20
of slavery was recognized by the National Constitution, and that any direct=20
interference with it by Congressional legislation, or partisan efforts to=20
free the slaves, trenched upon the rights of the Southern States. But he=20
could not sell a human being, one that he had made is slave by purchase, a=20
transaction which made chattels of men and women. A strong feeling obtained=20
among the more cultured and more humane classes in the South against the sal=
e=20
of family or inherited slaves, and with many, as with Major Thomas, there wa=
s=20
a strong repugnance to the sale of purchased slaves, apart from any=20
opposition to the institution itself. In the purchase the horrid=20
possibilities were put out of view; but in sale they would force themselves=20
into sight. Deciding not to sell his slave, Major Thomas took her with him t=
o=20
his home in Virginia, and did not see her again, after going north, until as=
=20
a free woman she became his voluntary servant. After the war this woman=20
claimed for herself and her husband and children the protection of her old=20
master, and although it was both inconvenient and expensive for General=20
Thomas to take them, he had them moved from Virginia to Nashville, Tennessee=
.=20
They afterwards caused trouble and anxiety. He tried to train them for a mor=
e=20
independent life, and made an effort to induce them to start for themselves.=
=20
But they were unwilling to leave him for an uncertain living, and they=20
therefore remained with him until he was ordered to the Pacific coast in=20
1860. It being then impracticable for him to give them further personal care=
,=20
he induced his brother living in Mississippi to give them employment, and=20
with their consent, he sent them to him."
The point of this post does not rest on noble or abhorrent ancestors. Their=
=20
actions neither exonerate nor shame us. But, we cannot begin to address the=
=20
pernicious effects of racism until we acknowledge the way in which class,=20
color privilege, and family history shape our present opportunities and=20
lives.
As a historian I can resist clarifying another point in Mr. Kaag's post. =20
"In February 1948, President Harry S. Truman directed the U.S. armed forces=20
to desegregate as quickly as possible. In July, he issued Executive Order=20
9981 calling on the military to end racial discrimination. It would take=20
several years-and another war-before the military actually ended=20
segregation." <http://www.gliah.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm=A0>. =20
Regards,
Rosemary Huskey
=20
--part1_1e.a8b7c4b.2b84ad2f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"=
Times New Roman Greek" LANG=3D"0">Dear Visionaries.<BR>
One of the most difficult issues for white people to acknowledge is that the=
color of their skin confers upon them a privileged status. This is pa=
rticularly true in the United States and the Western European countries with=
colonial histories. In my experience, those who complain most bitterl=
y about the unfairness of affirmative action legislation base their position=
s on the mythology that they, and their families, are (were) free of the tai=
nt of racial prejudice. (This myth is not dissimilar in type to the argument=
adopted by the majority of French and German people following W.W.II. =
That is, all French people were really in the underground resistance - cert=
ainly they never collaborated; and all Germans really hated Hitler and tried=
to protect Jews.) I wish that I could say with such self=20=
righteous certainty as Don Kaag that my family never oppressed anyone. =
Sadly, that is not the case. And indeed, if Don Kaag were to do a lit=
tle research on the ancestor he so proudly claims, Gen. George H. Thomas, he=
would discover that those pesky slave owners, (which were never <B>our</B>=20=
ancestors) in fact were - although his family clearly operated on a much gra=
nder scale than mine. The following link <http://www.aotc.net=
/Life1.htm> leads the reader to a contemporary biography of General Thoma=
s, (written in 1872). Page 17 includes the following passage (the word=
s "he" and "his" refer to General Thomas):<BR>
"His departure from Texas brought to him a perplexing problem the dispositio=
n of a slave woman, whom he had purchased in Texas when it was not practicab=
le to hire a servant. This problem was not of difficult solution for an ordi=
nary slave owner; but with Major Thomas it was otherwise, since, to use his=20=
own words, he "could not sell a human being." He had been accustomed to the=20=
service of slaves all his life, and felt no scruples in purchasing one, when=
in need of a servant. But when the question of the sale of a slave became a=
practical one, the nature of the transaction from this point of view was so=
repulsive to him that it could only be answered in the negative, and althou=
gh it was against his pecuniary interest to take this woman with him to Virg=
inia, he resolved to do it. He was a Southern man, at this time, so far as t=
o introduce, by purchase, a slave woman into his family where she would alwa=
ys be treated kindly; but he revolted at the possibilities of misery and cru=
el treatment which inhered in the system of American slavery. He was not the=
n an abolitionist in the northern significance of that offensive term, and d=
oubtless he would have claimed, that, as a political matter, the institution=
of slavery was recognized by the National Constitution, and that any direct=
interference with it by Congressional legislation, or partisan efforts to f=
ree the slaves, trenched upon the rights of the Southern States. But he coul=
d not sell a human being, one that he had made is slave by purchase, a trans=
action which made chattels of men and women. A strong feeling obtained among=
the more cultured and more humane classes in the South against the sale of=20=
family or inherited slaves, and with many, as with Major Thomas, there was a=
strong repugnance to the sale of purchased slaves, apart from any oppositio=
n to the institution itself. In the purchase the horrid possibilities were p=
ut out of view; but in sale they would force themselves into sight. Deciding=
not to sell his slave, Major Thomas took her with him to his home in Virgin=
ia, and did not see her again, after going north, until as a free woman she=20=
became his voluntary servant. After the war this woman claimed for herself a=
nd her husband and children the protection of her old master, and although i=
t was both inconvenient and expensive for General Thomas to take them, he ha=
d them moved from Virginia to Nashville, Tennessee. They afterwards caused t=
rouble and anxiety. He tried to train them for a more independent life, and=20=
made an effort to induce them to start for themselves. But they were unwilli=
ng to leave him for an uncertain living, and they therefore remained with hi=
m until he was ordered to the Pacific coast in 1860. It being then impractic=
able for him to give them further personal care, he induced his brother livi=
ng in Mississippi to give them employment, and with their consent, he sent t=
hem to him."<BR>
The point of this post does not rest on noble or abhorrent ancestors. =20=
Their actions neither exonerate nor shame us. But, we cannot begin to=20=
address the pernicious effects of racism until we acknowledge the way in whi=
ch class, color privilege, and family history shape our present opportunitie=
s and lives.<BR>
As a historian I can resist clarifying another point in Mr. Kaag's post.&nbs=
p; "In February <B>1948</B>, President Harry S. Truman directed the U.=
S. armed forces to desegregate as quickly as possible. In July, he issued Ex=
ecutive Order 9981 calling on the military to end racial discrimination. It=20=
would take several years-and another war-before the military actually ended=20=
segregation." <http://www.gliah.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm=A0&g=
t;. <BR>
Regards,<BR>
Rosemary Huskey<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_1e.a8b7c4b.2b84ad2f_boundary--