The first African slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619.
Kunte Kinte, his daughter Kizzy, and her son George noticed that every time the whites "massas" became frightened--most likely by the threat of an uprising--they passed laws that further restricted the rights of slaves and free blacks. Certainly, they never envisioned a United States in which slaves would have rights.
Denmark Vesey's abortive South Carolina uprising was to erupt in 1822. And in 1831, Nat Turner's Southampton Insurrection was said to be caused by his ability to read and write. This led to laws against educating slaves and freedmen, and in 1857 the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision stating that blacks could never become citizens. It also stated that Congress couldn't prohibit slavery in federal territories.
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (formalized in 1863) ruled that slaves would be freed in the Southern states that fell back under Union control, and in 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution read, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Painfully slow progress
In 1866 the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision and extended American citizenship to anyone born in the United States, including blacks. The 1875 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination--at least in theory--on juries and in public accommodations, though schools remained segregated. And in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment wouldn't apply to privately owned facilities.
For decades following the end of the Civil War, free blacks found themselves facing the economic equivalent of slavery. It wasn't until 1954 that the Supreme Court decision Brown vs. Board of Education ruled against segregation in schools, and in 1955 Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white person, leading Montgomery, AL, to desegregate the bus system.
One hundred years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was formalized, Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested for demonstrating in Birmingham, AL, as the police turned fire hoses and dogs on the demonstrators. Also in 1963, NAACP leader Medgar Evers was murdered in Jackson, MS.
Despite the painful slowness with which society moved forward, there were the occasional high points. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations...protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education...prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, [and] to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity..." The Voting Rights Act of 1965 fought practices that prevented African Americans from participating in elections.
Yet in 1965, Malcolm X was murdered, and 34 people died in the Watts Riots in Los Angeles. And in 1968, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, TN.
It seemed as if for every step forward, there were at least three steps back.
Misery loves company
African-Americans weren't--and aren't--alone in their struggle for fundamental human rights. Native Americans and people of Latino or Asian heritage have always faced abuse, and faith-based bigotry is a tradition as old as religion itself. Throughout the history of the United States, people have feared those who were different.
There will always be abuses. Human beings are flawed, and that isn't likely to change. Yet while the pendulum continues to swing back and forth, new indications appear that the American culture will continue to evolve--sometimes taking steps forward. On a political level, the government has become more racially diverse, and people of various national origins pepper the economic landscape. This newfound authority grants them the opportunity to make a difference, and at times they even rise to the challenge.
Discuss ROOTS and it's impact on American history and culture >>
Purchase the 30th Anniversary Edition of ROOTS
from Borders >>
from Barnes & Noble >>
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
It's a legal precedent that the US has paid for again and again. What went around -- always comes around. Will we EVER get past putting property and the right to property ahead of all other rights?
I'm not hopeful on this point.
For a nation the Roots phenomena proved cathartic. It enabled us to look at our slave past and watch it with a personal eye through Haley's ancestors. For me, one of the most significant contributions of Roots was impetus it served to genealogy research. So many people searched their own roots because of Roots.
Roots has made me even more interested in my own family background, and given me new impetus to follow up. I hope this discussion has done the same for a great many people. Spread the word!
Sadly, it does seem as if man has entirely too much potential for inhumanity, and we always seem to find ways to live up to our potential. I'm heartened, though, by the number of successful persons from the entire spectrum of our culture, and can only hope that those who are successful will use their success to affect others.
Also, there is a court case here in Jackson that I haven't heard about much in the national news. James Ford Seale, a former Klansman, is on trial for the murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, two black teenagers, in 1964. You can read more about it at http://www.roadtomeadville.com.
As for Roots, a good story but representative of Alex Haley's "journey" no.
In the past Arabs raided villages that were considered infidels because the inhabitants didn't practice the Islamic faith. The survivors were sold as slaves to the whites who were only too happy to have someone work in their plantations and households for nothing.
African tribes also sold people captured from raids to the Arabs and the whites.
The whites took refuge in the ill-founded lie that those of darker skin colour were inferior to whites and thus must be their slaves. Even their Christian priests believed it and preached it!
So do not blame the Jews.
Blame man; whose ingenuity when it comes to performing acts of cruelty, outright racism and terrorism leaves one wondering how the Good Lord could love us so much.
Apart from anything else it's given me the incentive to find c. Euros 750000 to BUY the (ruined) castle which once belonged to my ancestors in Ireland, and also the basic idea for a novel I've recently completed and am now looking to market ...........
I love how everyone hates 'slavery' now. It is culturally hated today, but to judge past civilizations by today's standards is absurd. There are people all around the world that are in effect slaves, even today, and I don't see many people refusing to purchase imported merchandise because it was made by slave labor.
It's easy talking about right and wrong, but how many people are willing to suffer for right? We are at a crossroads where energy, pollution, immigration, whatever require understanding and action. What do we do? Bitch and complain! That's it.
Years from now people will look back and point fingers at us for our hateful treatment of Hispanics and others. While professing our loathing of slavery there are many denying work, rights, reasonable pay, human needs, to others. There are a lot of Americans who believe everyone 'owes' them -- especially the government that seems more than willing to hand out fists of cash to quiet the masses.
Someone mentioned Malcolm X as if some white bigot killed him. Wasn't he murdered by a black Muslim because he tried to changed his teachings about the necessity for a black revolution? I hope someone has the inside information, because I don't know. This theory was given to me by a history student who claimed the real reason was suppressed to further black pride (whatever that is).
And since we're on the topic of rights -- why can a black person yell nigger all day long but a non-black can lose their job, income, rights, etc., for uttering the word? Isn't that cultural slavery? Didn't a murderer go free because a white guy spoke the word into a dictation machine while writing a fictional story?
You totally missed the point. It would seem you've been so terrorized by political correctness you can't even type the word nigger. I've discussed this issue with many black friends and our use of the term in casual conversation. The response usually is something like, "I don't care if a black calls me a nigger, but a white person better not do it."
How would you respond if a white person said, "I don't care if you call me redneck, but a black better not do it." ?
My point has a lot to do with prejudice. The reason you missed it is that you've become a victim yourself and don't even know it. I don't normally use the racial term or have any desire to do so. My problem is with any group trying to control another. Right is right. If Joe Blow is fired for saying "Red Neck" then Mike Moe should be fired for saying it.
The PC mindset of average America is locked into the past victimhood of blacks as if nothing has changed in the last 50 years. As long as ethnic groups are allowed to mandate the actions, vocabulary, or customs of other groups we have a problem. Would you feel better if you knew I was an African American? The fact that you fixated on my word usage is indication you're perpetuating the victim-hood mindset. From that point of view growth and social progress is difficult at best. Artificially creating a means to elevate verbal insults to physical crimes is unproductive and gives any minority group more cause to claim victimhood and wallow in self pity -- avoiding the growth necessary to end prejudice.
I believe all insults are basically evil. But the elevation of one group's right over another is a form of slavery, whether it's control of language, actions, etc. If everyone is equal under the law then everyone should be held to the same standards. To do otherwise is to allow the continuation of separate and artificial social structures.
LEARN MORE . . .
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Perhaps because there are so few things, if any, that blacks can control, they (we) feel that if they want to call each other niggers, then they can.
This is exactly the victim-hood idea I'm trying so hard to dispel. Four of five blacks have good jobs, suffer only slight prejudice -- no more than many others in different ways, live in middle class homes, have a good education, etc. The perpetuation of the victim-myth does more damage than good. The cultural use of forbidden words demeans EVERYONE. This is a case of a small minority of one ethnic group intentionally enslaving the rest with a lie. It's time we grew up.
The debate over the use of such derogatory terms seems to me more like self-righteous posturing than an honest attempt to understand the issue under discussion. I am not a fan of rap music. I readily admit that it is because of my age and upbringing. And I do cring more than most when I hear ethnic aspersions. I attribute that to over-sensitivity. I listenined in discomfort the night on "Nightline" when the Dodger general manager attempted to explain why blacks lacked the tools to be baseball managers. He was fired because of it. I thought was an overreaction. I thought that Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder should have been given the benefit of the doubt when he inadvertently used the N-word during a casual conversation. He too was fired. Like many other blacks, I was offended when Howard Cosell said: "just look at that monkey run," in referring to a black running back heading for the goal line. But given his history as a genuine supporter of black athletes, especially Muhammed Ali, no one held it against him. The issue to me isn't whether "nappy headed ho's," or even "nigger, spics, or wetbacks" should flow over the national airways. Each case should be judged on it own merits, or lack thereof. Don Imus was wrong and should have been fired for directing his insidious, mean-spirited comments toward a group of young ladies whom he did not know and knew nothing about. It was a Freudian slip by a man with a history of racist leanings. I found his barbs egregiously offensive and utterly unconscionable, and unexcptable by any civilized standard. It may well have been, but it seems most unlikely given the class they exhibited, that the ladies may have referred to each other as "nappy headed ho's" during spurts of locker room jesting. But that's the point I'm trying to make. As much as it pains me to say it, there is a kind of therapeutic value for oppressed and beleagured people to build reflective shields to ward off words intended to demean and dehumanize them---as long as such aspersions are kept in the family, sort of speak. www.charlestwilliams.com
I absolutely agree with your first remarks.
Your well thought out explanation is due full consideration. People of good will eventually win out and my hope is given another decade of advancement all of us will be able to smile as we look back over this journey of understanding.
I have filmed many rap videos and always get the feeling of internal tension when the group talks 'dirty' outside the lyrics. Many times the words are not used in jest. A Black director I know only drops into the slang when he's angry. I still feel it is emotionally destructive and everyone should be aware of its dangers.
I thank everyone for their comments. I got off the topic of ROOTS. It was a great series and would love to see it broadcast again.
Let me first say that, as an African-American male, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issues that you did. But, unfortunately, your words demonstrate a serious misperception of reality. Your (relatively young) age is showing. You seem to be rational (that's a good thing) and sith more facts, your opinions would be different--rather than reactionary from a young white male who only sees how "good" it is today compared to how "bad" it was in the past, your words would be more compassionate when you can see through the eyes of Charles T. Williams (above) who, as I have, have observed life since 1953 and lived through discrimination, the Civil Rights era of the 1960s and '70s (in high school and college and in the Air Force as an officer and a pilot) and watched the turnaround begin in the 1980s (under Reagan) and culminate in this 21st century under an administration whose policies and appointments have placed the credibility of the Justice Department (especially the Civil Rights Division) into question.
In case you didn't know, many of the experienced career civil rights attorneys in the Justice Department have been replaced with cronies who have failed to prosecute civil rights cases against blacks and other people of color despite the backlog of cases. Instead, this administration has not only failed to enforce anti-discrimination laws against blacks and women, but has taken the side of the discriminator in many cases--in support of business:
"What may be worse, however, is the administration's abuse of civil rights laws to condone and promote potentially discriminatory activity. While failing to file cases to protect black voters, this administration has brought the very first case alleging discrimination by blacks, against whites, in Mississippi, of all places."
-------http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21799 (This article also chronicles this administrations support for those who impeded the voting rights of minorities in Ohio during the 2004 election--where I live. There were many newspaper articles here that support the claim of voting rights violations against blacks. See also: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHA,TSHA:2005-45,TSHA:en&q=bush+discrimination+cases+against+blacks)
Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals and trial court award of $316,000 in back pay and punitive damages to a woman who, for years, was paid substantially less than her equals (affecting her Social Security pension and her retirement pension). She did not know she was being paid less until she received an anonymous letter telling her that she was being paid $6,000 per year less than the most junior executive at Goodyear, which means there was a greater difference between her pay and the senior executives to which she was an equal. She retired and sued. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the law said she should've filed her claim within 180 days after the act of discrimination.
Congress didn't mean that and is working on changing the wording--wouldn't it still be discrimination to be paid less on her LAST day of employment? (triggering her 180 days) Not according to the Court.
If you hadn't heard of this well-publicized recent case, then you're probably missing out on cases and acts that are NOT so well-publicized.
For example, Stephen S.'s articulate article didn't mention the fact that during Reconstruction immediately after the Civil War from 1865 to 1877, blacks in the U.S. fared well, but then the turnaround began to keep blacks from voting (who outnumbered whites in places in the South which used to have plantations where there were tens and hundreds of black slaves and only the white owner and his family).
Then came the end of the century, the Roaring Twenties with discrimination, murder and lynchings of blacks (worse than slavery in my opinion) without punishment for the whites that perpetrated it. There was WWI (blacks were not allowed to fight in the military although they fought bravely during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and as part of the Buffalo Soldiers out west protecting whites), WWII (where toward the end blacks could fight and even fly instead of cooking and cleaning in the military--notice in Saving Private Ryan there were no blacks?), and Korea.
All this took place during what I call the American Apartheid--but is officially called JIM CROW, where actions of whites and laws were passed in the north and south prohibited blacks from doing lots of things that white people could do (sit in passenger train cars instead of with cargo, getting married, owning land, going to "white" public schools--which often meant no schooling at all, buy insurance, eat in restaurants, sleep in hotels & motels, swim in "public" pools, live wherever they could afford, work wherever they were qualified, sit anywhere but the balcony of movie theaters, be unhassled by police, buy gas on a trip, get their car serviced, start a business, attend public and private colleges and universities--or even play baseball, basketball or football in the major leagues.
Whew! There were a lot of things blacks were prohibited from doing that whites could do (in all parts of the country)--and my list is nowhere near exhaustive. Stephen should have included the black towns (Rosewood, FL) and parts of towns (Tulsa, OK) that were burned down by whites for one discriminatory reason or other. (Don't just take my word for it, Google them and read for yourself.) Black men were arrested and prosecuted for things they didn't do--especially false accusations of rape by white women (often to protect their own reputation). The Scottsboro Boys was among the most famous case. See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=TSHA%2CTSHA%3A2005-45%2CTSHA%3Aen&q=black+men+falsely+accused+of+rape+of+white+woman+train
Many blacks have light skin not because their mother or father married a white man (that was prohibited, remember?), but because their great-grandmother was raped by a white man (as mine was in Tennessee) or slave owner and there's no way a black woman would be allowed to accuse a white man of rape. Sure, some may have been consensual, but the relationship would not have the legal protection of marriage (support of the child or divorce when it was over).
My point, David, is that during all those years, from 1878 to 1964, after the first Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1875 and 1957 were quite similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with minor improvements over the preceding Act because whites were refusing to obey the law. (See: http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights-acts) But in 1883, the Supreme Court declared the 1875 Act, which guaranteed "full and equal employment", unconstitutional because the rights protected were not "civil" rights and, therefore, Congress could not legislate against the acts of private individuals. Following the Court's decision, the states enacted laws containing segregation--protecting whites, and especially their white children, from niggers and their nigger children.
And that's where I was headed with this recount of history. For SOME white people--and maybe MOST white people--"nigger" was the only word they knew and used for ALL (not some) black Americans. And they used it as a pejorative. "Redneck" or "cracker" is generally not used for ALL whites--and although also perjorative, they don't hold the same stigma and hurt that "nigger" held for the 100 years of Jim Crow.
(Personally, I don't believe we African-Americans should receive reparations for slavery--it was a bad business, but it was business. On the other hand, I believe that we should receive reparations for Jim Crow segregation--for the laws that were passed that prevented blacks, now U.S. citizens--with black men being able to vote decades before white women) from having the same due process, liberty and opportunities that whites had. But that's just me.)
I just wanted to add some more facts to your understanding of race in America because it just didn't seem accurate--and a borderline perversion of reality.
First, you state, "Four of five blacks have good jobs, suffer only slight prejudice -- no more than many others in different ways, live in middle class homes, have a good education, etc."
What country/reality were you talking about? Wow! 80% employment! And good jobs? Good schools and good education? Middle-class homes? "Slight" prejudice? To quote tennis great John McEnroe, "You've got to be kidding me!"
Do a Google search for UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BLACKS and see what you get. 1.28 million hits, the majority of which show these facts: white unemployment inched up from 5.4% to 5.5%, while black unemployment went from 10.8 to 11.8%--which is 10 times the increase; 40% of black teenagers are unemployed, twice the rate of white teenagers; and the unemployment rate of black men was 14% in 2000--higher than for Hispanics, whites or even black women. Just about every link on the first page (first link isn't linked to a page) speaks of how bad the employment situation is for blacks. And just think, we all know that government unemployment statistics don't show the real truth for anybody since they only include those who are actively looking for work (that they survey or are receiving unemployment benefits since you have to be looking to receive them). The statistics don't include those whose benefits have expired after 6 months or those who have just given up looking because there aren't any jobs in their fields in their location and they can't move. For example, there are teachers, police and firemen who have been laid off--as well as lawyers and engineers--who can't find positions near where they live and they can't move because their house won't sell. There's a good chance that the unemployment rate is actually TWICE (or more) the official rate (in all categories)--especially with all the outsourcing overseas.
As for education, in general, women now outnumber males in college, and attendance by blacks is actually decreasing from what it had been in the past--partially due to cost, partially to substandard elementary and secondary education, partialy due to family situation, partially due to cultural influences. There are some who believe that the reason busing didn't work was because of white flight from the public schools. They either moved to all-white suburbs around the inner city or they "found" money to send their children to private schools. A study (by white researchers, I'm sure) concludes that:
"Compared with White persons, Black/African American persons in the United States continue to experience high rates of educational deficits and employment stagnation as well as lower college graduation rates. This study examined the influences on Black/African American and White college students' high school completion, college attendance, and career choice. Results indicate that future income and future status have a greater influence on the career choice of Black/African American college students than on the career choice of White college students. The authors discuss these findings and present implications for career development professionals."
---http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAX/is_3_55/ai_n18791411
Additionally, please read the relatively short (with several good charts) testimony of a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in June 2005 at:
http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/2005.0715.testimony/
His proposition is that the black middle class has not grown since the 1980s. He shows that, while absolute numbers has grown (as it does for all categories), compared to the total number of blacks, the percentage of middle class blacks has remained stagnant while other groups have grown.
A Chicago Tribune article states, "Young black men are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be both out of school and out of work. For every white college-age male in prison, there are 28 in college; for black men, that ratio drops to less than 1 in 3."
---http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/news_citations/050206_chicagotribune.html
David, most whites (if they look around) work in offices and other places where there are few, if any, blacks--not because blacks don't want those jobs, but because they don't know about them (that hidden job market only accessible through networking). We've all heard, "It's not what you know but who you know." Actually, it's about who knows you. It works like this: the white secretary or other position learns that someone is leaving and tells a friend or acquaintance (who is also white) to apply for the future opening.
Slight prejudice against persons of color? Let's not forget DWB (driving while black) automobile stops; the Rodney King beating; unarmed Sean Bell, who was killed after a bachelor party when officers shot 50 rounds into his vehicle in NYC on his wedding day; Abner Louima who had a broom handle shoved up his rectum.
I apologize to everyone for the length of my comment. Alex Haley's Roots portrayed how egregious slavery was and made it real for the reader (and watcher); I just don't anyone to forget how bad it was afterward--that it's nowhere as good as what David says it is (reality check)--and that the remnants of Jim Crow still exist today.
Often, in present-day problems, great attention is given about WHODONIT! (sp)
and little interest in helping the victim and finding out the "root of the cause." That is a subject insufficiently treated in "Roots" with its focus on the victim.
Would it be too far off to suggest that many, with comments of outrage, may have done the same thing, if they had lived then? Or, can they remind themselves of the last time when they publicly complained about a racist joke or remark, if ever?
The driving force for my interest on this aspect is the total silence, in what I have read, about the fact that the "best" our government did was to "offer" "two mules and fifty acres" (of land stolen from the natives) that was never turned into action.
I am happy to read that Alabama has currently apologized for "whatever" they did to support slavery. I think that is a good and commendable First Step. Bad if it's the Last Step. We have to wait until they, and all the other states, "grow up" to recognize there are many more steps that have yet to be considered.
For example, I have never read any reference to the perverse "education" system that led to events that I read in the newspaper, including an atrocious killing of a young man many years ago. To what extent has that kind of values retain the support of our schools? Now? Some do not even consider "values" an "Education Issue", which could be a polite way of saying "none of your business!" Do you know what they would do, except for fear of getting caught?
What does it take to reform a criminal? It was a crime to kill Emmitt and the witnesses did not come forwards until recently. You do know most criminals never reform and continue their pattern of behaviour until they are locked up, again and again. Let me put it another way, how long ago, do you think, was lynching declared illegal in the U.S. Senate, the "best deliberative body in the world."?
Have we began to see the magnitude of the Education on Values problem we don't ever talk about? And, we must talk about values, first, to begin to develop an initial consensus. Do you think we ever will? Do you think we could? I have never seen a Letter To The Editor in a newspaper on this subject. Yes, we have freedom of speech. I know. MikeSar
Nobody should get special privileges -- but we should all be on an equal footing. Too much time has gone by for any other state to exist between black and white (and in between). Everything should be seamless between us, but it's still NOT. It's still a big deal to me when I see black and white people getting along, because strife between the two is what I am used to. Why?
As for slavery .. you know we didn't invent this concept in the United States. It had been an ongoing thing from before the time of Jesus. It still hasn't ended globally, and it wasn't unacceptable in this country till about 140 years ago. Slavery was never based on the idea that others were intellectually or spiritually inferior. It was based on conquest. Why have we latched onto the idea of a biological imperative based on skin color and national origin? It's stupid.
We are all more or less equal and we should all have the same rights.
Saying all that, I would hate to be African American because I'd be in the minority wherever I went. At some level, skin color does define us here in the United States, and being a member of a minority is intimidating. I wish everyone ignored it, but we don't ....
That educating slaves was illegal did not stop the parents of George Washington Carver from teaching him to read. This white couple had no children of their own and raised him as their only child after his mother was kidnapped. The Carvers were not the only white people who threw figurative fingers at that law.
It was not in the best interest of slave owners to keep their slaves ignorant. A slave who could do bookkeeping was more valuable than one who could not. One thing common in human nature seems to be not wanting to do math.
George Washington Carver went on to become one of the foremost geniuses of his time. Despite the fact that it was somewhat illegal and completely unprecedented, Carver graduated from college in Iowa, probably the most celebrated member of his class in his own time and since.
He went to Tuskegee at the behest of Booker T. Washington. Carver was lionized by other geniuses of the time, notably Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, more than he was appreciated at Tuskegee. Carver would not come out of Alabama, so Edison and Ford had to go down there to visit him. Carver came out once to testify for protective tariffs for peanuts, once they began to thrive to a point of being in surplus. The story of Carver testifying in front of Congress is a great one. I highly recommend it from one of the biographies.
Booker T. had to raise money for the school, and he had to be spiffy at all times. Carver was incapable of spiffy, by all accounts.
Carver was always discovering things that could have been patented, such as the formula for a deep blue stain, isolated from clay, that had not been used by humans since Egyptian times.
But Carver was not a bookkeeper, probably a good thing. Famous people would send him checks, and he would spill things on them in his workshop. Everyone was always trying to get him to clean up his workshop. In later years, one of his northern admirers paid to put an elevator in his shop.
Had Carver tried to patent things, it would likely have triggered white jealousy.
As it was, he was kindly and distracted, and he didn't seem like much of a threat to white people. Many of his own people made fun of him.
Carver's inventions and discoveries were given away to whites and blacks alike in the South. Had he not figured out how to use peanuts and other legumes to rejuvenate soil destroyed by cotton cultivation, the South would have been much worse off than it came to be. It is a sad irony that an evil American corporation tried to patent neem, a plant that has been used in India nearly forever. Indian agronomists appealed to international organizations, and got them shut down, but it is embarrassing they would try to pull a nasty thing like that. Times change.
The number of products still used that were first proposed by George Washington Carver is just staggering.
Booker T. Washington was not the only black educational genius in the South. There was another who founded a school at Piney Ridge. Probably there were many of these determined founders of schools. The raw courage of these guys is stunning to read about. They got dressed up and went begging to the richest white guys around, not knowing, as they started off, if they were going to live to tell.
Often, the rich white guys had had to take scary risks themselves, and seeing raw courage standing in front of them inspired them too, and they gave.
It was Booker T. Washington's idea to make bricks for the South cheaper than they could get them from the North. Part of his plan was for use in Tuskegee's buildings, but also for sale to others of whatever color in the community.
Poor white folks knew very well that money and other goodies were coming in to Tuskegee from outside. Tuskegee was a goose laying golden eggs, and many southern whites used the knowledge and products coming out of Tuskegee and were protective of the institution. They could clearly see it as having great value for the community at large. This was a deliberate strategy on the part of Booker T., and he got put down by some northern Blacks for this. Carver was made fun of as the "peanut" man. The enormity of his contribution was belittled by many in his own race. The two men were called Toms and all sorts of bad things.
Even racists, if they can get a better product cheaper from a different race, will most of the time go with cheaper and stifle themselves long enough to make the trade. As I see it, it is only this that saves us from the internecine strife common in other places. What worries me now is the influence of huge corporations and the corruption they try to buy. Looking at where the presidential candidates have got their funding from is downright scary. Cartels collude to keep the best products away from people and to force people to buy what they make.
We live in silly, entitled times compared to some other times in history. I see some countervailing trends to our becoming beached whales on our sofas, slowing dying of overweight and diabetes.
When I go to the gym in my neighborhood, I see all races huffing and puffing on machines that should be making energy for the grid. Oh well. Maybe that is next year--I hope so.
It would help if Ron Paul wins and brings instruments of violence of ours home from everywhere they are. As he says, we trade with people, we talk to people, why would we keep instruments of force on their soil?
I love thinking and writing about George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington. Thanks for the post.
The things revealed in ROOTS represent the wrongs mankind has committed upon mankind, and a quick review of the news reveals that the world is still full of such injustice. So rather than trying to decide who got the shorter end of the stick, perhaps we should focus on making things better.
And rather than feeling overwhelmed. as if we need to take on the whole world, perhaps each individual can simply figure out what's within their power, and do that. It might be as simple as choosing to become aware, and not participate in prejudice.