7 Facts About Slavery You May Not Know

 

As a well-read scholar and student of antebellum history, in this blog I hope to present some realities about slavery during the antebellum period 1820-1860. There are several misconceptions about the eras of slavery that often are a product of anachronistic readings of the period or opinions that lack a total perspective.

Slavery was a complex institution. As a labor and social system there are several aspects of the institution that are not discussed in common conversation that may change the perception of the system and reveal certain truths if we are to look closer. The following are 7 facts about slavery that often overlooked and unknown amongst those who casually discuss the period:

1.   Slave Hiring was a common practice as southern cities began to industrialize.

a.    Plantations were not the only ways that slaveowners brought from their slaves. The price of slaves frequently fluctuated and slave-owners were most interested in finding ways to maximize their investment in human cargo. In industrial cities such as Richmond, Va., Charleston, SC., Augusta, GA., and Baltimore, it was common for entrepreneurs to hire slaves to work in their factories. Factory work presented opportunities for slaves to collect capital for themselves and it also worked for slaveowners as factory owners typically paid 10 % of the total value of the slave to “rent” or hire a slave for a period (pay $150 for a slave purchased for $1500). Some slaves returned to their plantations at the end of the workday and others stayed in housing quarters located on the factory premises. However, many slaves were given papers by their masters and employers to remain the in the cities. Within major southern cities also lived substantial populations of free blacks—many whom are born free, chose to remain in the south to work who have been manumitted or purchased their own freedom. In these cities there was a strong cultural exchange between free blacks and bondspersons, which is exemplified in places such as Congo Square in New Orleans. Predictably, this dynamic discomforted many whites, as southern municipalities began to enact a series of laws designed to limit the interaction with free black and slave populations.

2.   The institution of slavery, as a whole, was not always as profitable nor as productive as free-labor.

a.    One common misconception of the entire slave period was its profitability. While it’s actual profitability is still an area of contention amongst many scholars, our generalization of period only applies to a particular period of time. Slavery was only as profitable as the products that slavery produced-- namely cotton, sugar, and tobacco in the US. While markets change and the US progresses, however, the development of railroads became very important for commerce. The transportation industry and the production of iron and the ability to turn raw materials into consumer goods became how northern cities progressed economically. As the global world moved away from the plantation economy, the owning of slaves to work on plantations was not as practical. Some southern industrialists deduced that by integrating slave labor into industrial factories, owning the labor force would give them a competitive advantage in production. However, the use of slaves in industrial factories did not work out as enterpreneurs had planned it. Ties with slave-owners, the meticulous and costly maintenance of the slave labor workforce (financing their housing (many slaves had taken their family with them), clothing, etc.) was not competitively advantageous to northern factory workers, especially during a period where employers were relatively free from liability with respect to the welfare of workers. Employing free labor was altogether cheaper.

3.   Many slaves were able to negotiate conditions in their workplace and bargain with slave-hirers

a.    The slave system, for owners, was intended to be as non-confrontational as possible. Knowing the volatility of owning human cargo, slaveholders understood that the less conflict with respect to their slaves meant greater productivity and thus profit for them. In addition, slaves often served as business liaisons amongst the aristocracy. When slaves were hired for work off of the plantation, slaves were often able to negotiate conditions and incentives (of course, so long as the slaveholder thought it to be reasonable in his mind). Unsatisfied workers disrupted productivity, and because factory owners invest such as large sum to hire the slave, some were also willing to make sure slaves were accommodated in the process.

4.   Brutal treatment on plantations was often economically impractical, as selling the slave was better discipline.

a.    It is often implied that slaveholders beat slaves to make them become more effective workers. Harsh treatment on slave plantations was frequent. It was not a method used to make slaves work harder, however. Incentive for working harder had less to do with punishment than it did with reward, and this is something slaveholders recognized early. The separation of families was commonplace to teach slave communities lessons about servitude. Marks on a slave drove down his economic value on the slave trade market. Slave traders were careful to do what they can to cover up signs of brutal treatment on the slave market. Lacerations, whip marks, visible bruises were details on the body that slave speculators viewed carefully as it was believed they indicated behavioral patterns.

5.   Slavery disenfranchised a substantial portion of working class native whites, planting the seeds of hatred against white supremacists groups long before the reconstruction era.

a.    White supremacist groups were largely developed in the years after the civil war when white men galvanized resources to reverse gains made by blacks during reconstruction. However, much of the one-sided conflict happens years before the civil war. White laborers rioted frequently against black workers and employers of black labor. Occupying a social status that was dependent upon the feasibility of black labor at the time was frustrating for white workers. In addition to slaves, employing free blacks in the south was also attractive for entrepreneurs. While white workers were viewed as being “militant”, free black workers lacked the social status as full citizens to assemble labor unions or negotiate fairer labor conditions. Free black workers, unlike slaves and white workers, could be paid smaller wages and be free of tensioning ties with slaveholders. White workers struck in opposition to the employ of slave labor in industrial factories for fears that industrialists would replace their skills by teaching slaves how to perform tasks that were mostly designated for white workers.

6.   Slavery & and an unwillingness to relinquish southern tradition is the largest reason why the south remained undeveloped and lacked competitiveness with the industrializing world.

a.    Once those southern staples lose its demand and profitability, the exchange and purchase of black bodies themselves becomes a significant function of slavery, particularly in the US, where the domestic slave trade turns New Orleans into the southern economic capital. To identify an analogy, it would be more useful to consider slaves as a form of technology (as problematic as that sounds). Newer and more effective forms of technology are constantly invented but in America, there are certain consumer markets that will always exist because they become markers of status. As the country drew closer to the civil war, the owning of black bodies became indicative of the place in which one occupied in society. The ownership of black bodies became a fulfillment for whiteness. Many working class-whites spent their entire lives in pursuit of becoming a planter, even to the extent that some gamble their future livelihood on the investment of slaves. Southern culture surrounded the ownership of black bodies to the extent that it crippled their economies and prevented them from investing more effectively to the production of transportation goods. 

7.   Slaves—politically, culturally and physically-- held a capital with wealthy whites that many working class whites lacked during the period.

a.    One awkward reality of slavery is relative distance and proximity slaves had to white elites. Slaves were the subjects of white supremacy but also an extension of white supremacy. White racial identity in the south could not exist without the presence of blacks. Slaves are protected as extensions of white privilege and their societal value is also derived from white supremacy (which might explain how we currently view our own status). On average, approximately ten percent of the population are planters (those owning ten or more slaves). While it is clear that slaves occupied little-to-none political clout with their slaveholding counterparts, they occupied a social status that was often elevated over non-slaveholding whites, and it was a status about which slaves themselves were aware. It is this very protection as extensions of whiteness that prevents white workers from successfully galvanizing support to defeat the use of slave labor in factories. Once blacks are no longer extensions of white supremacy in the years after the civil war, it leaves them exposed to the tensions and animosities white workers had been building toward blacks for decades, arguably centuries. Non-slaveholding whites are often powerless to the power-structure during the same period. Nominal favors are dealt to socially dependent white workers in exchange for votes and support. Also, southern municipalities are mostly indifferent to the demands of white workers.

We must place several things in perspective with regards to slavery. One of which is that the system itself drastically changed the psychological spirit of Africans that eventually emerge to become African Americans. Bondspersons find ways to make the most out of the situation in which they are found. One prevalent pro-slavery argument during this period is the quality of life advantage Blacks in the south had over Blacks in the north. What is problematic about that position is that it assumes that the quality of life is reduced to the material conditions that surround them. Enslaved blacks—no matter their relative “freedom” or opportunities afforded to them as being extensions of the white power-structure—are still left with the unending reality that their bodies do not belong to them. As normal-- even as comparatively advantageous—their lives may or may have not been, we must respect how destructive it is to the human psyche to be owned by another. More disturbingly and fascinatingly, we must respect how destructive it is to ACCEPT that one’s body is owned by another.

As I have stated already, there is evidence that suggest that enslaved blacks endured equal or better material conditions than many of their white, free, slave-less counterparts. In some contexts, their labor was often preferred over some of their white counterparts in areas where they both were skilled. In other contexts, the skilled white labor force had been forced to train slaves to perform certain skills. This is where my intellectual interests take off, as I am fascinated in finding out the reasons why white workers choose to antagonize blacks for the destruction of their plight and not the power structures, that, often, publicly insult white workers.

          As it pertains to reparations, we also must consider the vast majority of white workers that are disenfranchised as a product of having a national social and economic body that is based on the trading of black souls and the employ of owned labor.

          Furthermore, when reparative justice pundits demand restitution for slavery, it is mostly along the context of being reimbursed for the labor performed during the era. That is where the argument loses its gearth. Demanding to be recompensed for labor lends itself to the problematic conclusion aforementioned regarding material conditions and quality of life. I am inclined to believe that if are to discuss reparations, the discourse should exclusively be held to restitution for the psychological trauma endured. By then, though, we have lost by demanding compensation for unfathomable human suffering. Who has suffered more: African Americans that are continually discriminated upon and are acutely aware of such discrimination and can use that awareness as capital and leverage in a self-professed democratic and fair nation? Or poor working class and impoverished whites that have no idea that they are economically and socially excluded by design, and consider the only way to address their plight is to disrupt another’s? I am inclined to be sympathetic. Most black people are not.

The Peaceful Negro and the Insanity of Racism

For all intents and purposes, I hope for this blog to take a perspective on racial relations that has yet to be discussed that all may feel but none may talk about.

As a black man, I experience a certain type of racism (I understand that every non-white person does to an extent). The pathologies that African Americans develop as a result of racism has a profound effect on how we interact with unknown white Americans, especially in formal settings. An experience I recently had opened my eyes to a few things.

I enjoy playing basketball. On this one day in particular, I was coming from work and before going to a basketball gym I decided to stop at this bank to deposit this check. It had been a check I received quite a long time ago and finally decided to do something with it. Anyways, as with most days I dress professionally—I wear slacks and button down shirts every day.

The bank has quite a significant distance from the entrance to the teller’s counter—approximately 20 yards. As soon as I walk in I notice how all eyes lock in on me, and I am receiving a hard stare for approximately 2 or 3 seconds before some greets me. They welcome me to the bank while looking at my profile more-so than my face. As I continued to the teller’s desk I mentioned that I am going to deposit the check. I have never been to this bank before, so none of the tellers recognize me, I get that.

What is frustrating is that their suspicion has distracted them from being courteous, which is very important for local banks, which this bank happens to be. Instead of looking at me in the eyes when I arrive at the counter I notice them looking at my lips, my hair and my brow. And after looking at my ID extensively and getting a superior to check the validity of the check that happens to also be a check from the same bank, they finally deposit the check and I exit the store.

While the experience itself is not horrific, my intention is to make this a larger caricature of an everyday experience for black males around the country. Those criminally persecuted for being black, while significant, are in the minority; the vast majority of black men (I’d argue 99%) experience the nuances of racism. It’s the most routine experiences with racism that create insanity. The particulars of my story are what make it pertinent.

Before I walk into the bank, I am aware of how I will be perceived. And that’s the thing about the pathology of racism with many African Americans; many of us feel as if there are things that we personally can do to decrease our chances of being treated poorly. What is even crazier is that African Americans are sympathetic to whites who criminalize us on sight. I certainly was. I was thinking “how I could I blame her for being suspect of me? After all the things she’s seen on TV and how we allow ourselves to be portrayed, I would be suspicious if a strange black man walked into my bank too.” I even double checked my appearance in the window’s reflection. I wear glasses and I am between haircuts so I am not the freshest I could be up top, and I am between shaves too, but I have already mentioned how I am dressed. I was trying to disarm her perceptions.

It does not stop at appearances, either. There are certain mannerisms that black men develop in order to become less threatening to others in hopes of being treated a little more fairly. In this instance, a mannerism I often use is lightening the pitch of my voice. I take much of the base out of it and insert what I perceive to a less aggressive, more accommodating voice. I smile more than I normally would, I hand gesture less and create more small talk than normal as well. These are not conscious adaptations. These are psychological mannerism changes I make whenever I encounter whites (or those in position to afford me opportunities). All of these things are happening whilst I deposit a damn check.

And despite all of my efforts to put myself in the mind of this white woman, despite my inclination to be accommodating to her own stupid ass assumptions about who I might be and what I might do, I still received no different treatment. I might as well have gone inside the bank with loud headphones, chewing gum, skittles and a hoodie. To make matters worse, I had even told my friend-who had been wearing a hoodie and sweatpants- to remain in my car as I went into the bank. At that moment, as she avoids eye contact and excessive investigation of a check that belongs to the bank, I almost snapped. I began to wish that I was indeed there to rob the store. I longed to become the nightmare she assumed I was.

I felt foolish in the end. I felt like an Uncle Tom, a “bitch” (as my friends would just call it), a sell-out and a disgrace. All of my own racial maneuvering was supposed to make this as easy an experience as possible even though I was ready for the worst. I went through this entire mental process in hopes that I would be treated like anyone else.

I began to get angrier because I experience things like this every day. For the most part, however, black men have come to expect racial profiling and coded dehumanation as part of the norm. It is one of the things you learn to accept and adapt. I further got to thinking: how much of my personality is a response to that type of racism? Are there things that I do- even around my black friends- that are internalized from experiences with white people that I have forgotten to code-switch from? How much of this bullshit is actually a functional part of my personality?

You begin to feel foolish for accepting these kinds of things in the first place. You begin feeling foolish for taking this type of routine treatment in stride. But feel powerless because you feel that all of your worldly desires and opportunities are dependent upon taking racism as if it was a talent you list on a resume.

As I exited that bank, I had never been more driven to scare the shit out of some white folk. I am 6’3” 170 pounds. I am lanky with small hands and feet and I wear nothing but snug dress clothes. In my community, I am one the least threatening brothers you will find. Yet in another context, all these dress clothes, smiles and bowties makes you scary. I left feeling angry, menacing, and maniacal. And once again, Powerless, because I realized the following:

Fear is the one power we have over white people. Nevertheless, it is a power they give us. Aint that black folk in America? Even when we try to change the variable, they control the experiment.

Love and Hip Hop Atlanta and Why the Show is so Great

There has been much conversation and negative publicity about the fresh new reality series on VH1, Love and Hip Hop Atlanta. I have read articles and have had many conversations with individuals who have called for the series to be cancelled, have indicted the moral sense of those who choose to watch the show, and have seen those lament the show for its supposed lack of quality. Most importantly though, it appears that the largest beef with the show is how it portrays African American women; and how the show proves so many stereotypes “true.” Those who choose the view the show these ways are doing exactly that: choosing. There is enough beauty about the show, intentional or accidental, to validate watching the show and keep on the air. In fact, there is enough depth in the show to have a fond appreciation with how frank and disturbing the show can be because that is what reality shows are supposed to be.

I can understand the detractions of those opposed to the show, however. I can empathize with those who protest the show for the way it portrays African Americans. But should we consider to ignore  semi-accurate portrayals of the black community, just because they portray us in a “negative” light? Additionally, are we truly convinced that the difference between one getting a job is whether they watch Love and Hip Hop? The people who have such dispositions to African Americans are likely due to a lack of exposure to us. No show will validate our intelligence or aptitude; the narrative has already been painted and will persist whether the show exists or not. No show can make the perception of African Americans worse other than the easily corruptible African Americans who watch the show and have no relationships or personal narratives akin to the characters on the show. In other words, get over what the show is implying about blacks and pay more attention to the lived-world away from the television and inquire what that portrait is suggesting instead.

Back to love and hip hop. But what is truly overlooked is the legitimacy of the experiences of the main characters in the show. If we choose to look beyond the colloquialisms (I know some will not be able to), I see a show quite resemblant to what actually goes on in the lives of all relationships. However, if we ever had to apply them to a specific demographic, I would agree some of these details can be particular to the black experience.

Take Stevie J, for example. He is an apparently talented and motivated musician that often uses his own machismo, male insecurity, naiivete and power to subordinate women with relatively low-senses of self-esteem or worth, even to a point where it is puzzling. How does a strong, professional black woman fall into such a stronghold from this apparently worthless debilitating man? Moreover, she has a long-lasting relationship with him that has been filled with deceit and disappointment, all of which she is willing to put up with just to be in a relationship with the father of her child. Do her experiences fall on an empty narrative?

What makes the show different from other reality shows featuring black women is that the show is less about their experiences in relation to men, but more about the direct impact that these men seem to have on the trajectory of their lives. We have seen women cry over men who are not worth crying over, have endless banter over continuing relationships with men who are disingenuous, and we even see how the women occasionally enable the men to continue such behavior. On the other end, we notice how the men intentionally devise schemes to keep women at bay without being too distant, just within reach to grab them when their insecurities tell them their grip is slipping.

We even are given a mother figure on the show that is unaware of the ways in which she has apparently raised a non-committal son, and her continued mettling in his affairs prevents him from being actively assertive and definitive on his terms. The show is filled with men willing to play with these ladies emotions on a whim without it appearing to phase them one bit. And while some may argue it is offensive to the stereotype, it is certainly not out of a vacuous narrative, if you come from the type of environments that seem to foster these relationships every day.

In fact, the pains and ills of relationships for black women is the very reason why so many of our precious female r&b artists are prevalent. Your favorite Mary J song has already scripted the experiences of some of the characters. The narrative resonates. And while some of you may want to pretend that verbally abusive men are not torturing the psyche of our women with demeaning statements and lack of emotional support, perhaps you come from a candy-coated personal background where all the black women you know were carefully cradled by their black lovers. I am not making paint-stroke arguments that suggest this is the case for all black men and women, as it will apply to those outside that demographic. However, I come from an upbringing where this is an active feature. Other races might go through it, but it is certainly something African American women are less afraid about confronting publicly.

Perhaps many of you are upset by the narrative that black women seem to overlook or disregard the “good” men while appearing to have undying love for the men that mistreat them. Once again, is the issue that it portrays black women negatively or is it that the narrative is disingenuous? The show is amazing because it forces us the face the often brutal realities of experiences that we either do not want to admit exists or would much rather overlook.

Maybe you are yearning for something that portrays blacks in a “positive” (A.K.A.  acceptable to whites) light so much that we are quick dismiss something new, even if, after actually setting aside obvious bias brings some depth to the negative. In this show, the main characters appear to have answers as to why they are so fragmented. Their experiences with each other can be as destructive as they are uplifting. Or did viewers simply choose to overlook the tendency of the women in the show to solve personal disputes through conversation, or overlook the clear support system many of the young ladies had from each other.

Perhaps we can lament them for allowing their lives to be recorded, but I am certainly appreciative of it. It is just as painful to watch (for how true it is) as it is funny. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The true beauty of the show is that it appears as if the bad guys wins.

As much as you may indict Stevie J and his character, he appears to have no problem getting women in his life, many of whom he will put through the same destructive drama. There are no resolutions—no police officer comes to arrest him for his wrong-doings, he does not get beat up by his baby-mamas brother or uncles, and appears to receive no negative karma or feel no remorse for anything he has done. He has essentially accepted that this is who he is. He will continue his reign of destruction of the female psyche, just like so many men out there will continue to do despite being confronted by the pain they continue to cause in our communities. It is not pretty to see sometimes, I agree, but I would be damned if I did not a healthy cast of brothers who think destructively like that.

It is certainly a cringe-worthy show, and maybe you are turned off by the extra-ness, that, every show on air seems to have. However, once you look past that mandatory aspect of the show, inherent between the story lines are significant, imperative, and meaningful discourses on the experiences many of us have in relationships. Perhaps we are so appalled by it because our personal narrative is not too distant from it; inciting fears of self-indictment. 

Turn all the singers into lawyers and strippers into investment bankers and business moguls, I promise the experiences would be the same, the only thing that would change, maybe, is the dialect.

But once again, I CHOSE to see the wonder in the show. We as black people should stop being so self-protective when watching the experiences of other blacks. If you cannot find some solid lessons watching the show, maybe you should read more or choose to find the beauty about the black experience for better or worse. It is good sometimes to embrace the bad.  

Red Tails Review: A torn critic.

I have always been one to boast a refined ability to discern good art. From music to paintings to films, being able to decipher the good and bad has given me a pretty good referral reputation. Red Tails, the new George Lucas- produced movie that features the experiences of the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II is a must-see for various reasons. However, like many African American-centered movies that are not about relationships or gangsters, Red Tails has been under a siege of scrutiny. The movie has provoked worthwhile conversation on the screenplay, plot, acting and script.

Movies like this are interesting for several reasons. The movie is divisive because of what it might represent image-wise. Red Tails goes through the same evaluation process in the critical black mind as does hip-hop, Spike Lee, or Tyler Perry. We have always been fixated on the image of African Americans represented through our art. Hidden in these movies are also unintentional insights on the intellectual and character potential of African-Americans, a defense of the relevance of things particular to African Americans, and the universality of our experiences in the dominant human narrative (plainly stated, how can white people relate?). Every “black” movie is subtly and unknowingly interrogated by these questions.

Then, every now and again, the African American artist continually creates literature, music, films, and art that force us to re-evaluate those questions. Despite our desires to place the traditional standards of evaluation, our artists conspire to make the hardline statement “it’s a black thing.” Why I am torn over Red Tails is because I am unsure if this is one of those works.

Fact is, I am almost helpless to impose onto the movie my previous experiences of WWII movies. I came into this movie looking to have an experience that would make me altogether despise the existence of war like the horrid scenes of Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan. I came into this movie expecting to cringe at the site of black men working tirelessly to prove themselves to this country time and time again. I came into this movie looking for a combination of action, tears, triumph, and its impact on family- all traditional components of war movies and the general things that come to mind when we consider the realities of war.

Reality is, however, that the father on Jason’s Lyric left me more sympathetic to the realities of war than did Red Tails. While the commander’s father is mentioned, the non-existence of family in this film, in addition to the comical emphasis of “black Jesus” were features in the movie that troubled me. Perhaps a deeper religious emphasis in the film, maybe a flashback or two that allows us to identify with the characters a bit more, possibly suggesting that our characters had something to fight for like family, loved ones, racial pride and not their own individual competitiveness were things that discouraged me in the movie.

The problem is that our characters vacuously appear into the thrusts of WWII. And while perhaps a “white” movie could get away with that (which they rarely ever try to), a “black” movie can never get away by isolating its characters into a space. This not only makes the movie more believable, it adds a depth to the plot and characters that was very needed in the movie, and it did not require much work. If 15 minutes-worth of flashbacks from various characters, or some other method to display the main characters history had been devised, it would have done much for the movie. I found myself adding suggestions to the movie and trying to justify the reasons these things were not present. A dilemma that only a black movie can have me go through.

On the other hand, maybe our producers were not concerned with those details. Maybe they only cared about giving Negro children and teenagers something to watch when their history class goes over WWII. Maybe they just desired to make this a novel movie the black community could be proud of and outsiders just have the choice to embrace it. Perhaps their target audience did not care for the extraneous backdrop to the movie. Maybe they just want to inform people of the Tuskegee Airmen. Maybe they will leave the enthralling emotionally-charged, developed plot to the next filmmaker who desires to take it to the next level.

It is quite reasonable to just be concerned about giving this country some black WWII heroes their just media exposure. We deserve one, we’ve earned it. Maybe they intentionally downplayed the atrocities of war to portray fearless black men, who were confident in their abilities even in the most unfamiliar and intimidating of circumstances. Maybe they thought departing from the traditional media features of black culture would have prevented black youth from being enthusiastic about the movie. Maybe they intended to make taking on a warship with an old plane feel like an alley-oop. Maybe the directors knew exactly what they were doing. And that the boring, tear-jerking, gore-filled film about war was exactly what they were trying to avoid making. What if this was one of those moments where they were standing right against the standards of evaluation, screaming proudly, “it’s a black thing.”

Keep that in mind. Or, you’ll think the movie was ass.

Recurring History: Banning of free and “alien” blacks and the Alabama Immigration Bill

The intersection of labor, politics, and race has always been messy. These forces are often driven by vehicles of different interests, and in America’s racial and labor history, have often collided unnecessarily. It is a classic battle of enterprise, political ideology and culture, and observing how these branches of civilization check and balance each other out can be quite the fascinating spectacle.

Enter Alabama. The state recently passed a bill in June 2011 giving permission to traffic officers to detain individuals whom they have “reasonable” belief to be illegal immigrants. Here is their resolution, as stated in the original draft of the bill AL HB 56

Section 2. The State of Alabama finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. Because the costs incurred by school districts for the public elementary and secondary education of children who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States can adversely affect the availability of public education resources to students who are United States citizens or are aliens lawfully present in the United States, the State of Alabama determines that there is a compelling need for the State Board of Education to accurately measure and assess the population of students who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States, in order to forecast and plan for any impact that the presence such population may have on publicly funded education in this state. The State of Alabama further finds that certain practices currently allowed in this state impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Alabama. Therefore, the people of the State of Alabama declare that it HB56 is a compelling public interest to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigrants

Alabama would advertise the new policy as a “jobs” bill, promising that this policy would help create new jobs within the state that are the right of Alabama and American citizens. Farmers and other employers in Alabama vehemently opposed the bill. The new bill would have a primary impact on the employers, who were dependent upon immigrant labor to a large extent (which will be illustrated later). How would this new bill ensure that labor demands would be met? Also, how could the bill ensure that it would not prompt workers were legal workers, unwilling to be harassed by city officials, landlords, and policemen? Alabama officials attempted to quell the concerns of employers by pointing out that there were more than enough Americans who would be willing and available to mitigate the potential loss in labor.

A similar position was embraced by state officials in America’s antebellum years. While during this period white immigrant labor was welcomed by most industrialists because many of them brought industrial skill with them, state officials were more concerned with their American-bred black counterparts. Many southern states were alarmed with the increase in the free-black population as well as the increasingly mobile enslaved population. The prevalence of urbanization, industrialization, and slave-hiring made bondspersons more likely to roam around some southern American cities. As a result, many states embraced a policies that placed stronger restrictions on the mobility of enslaved and free blacks. Some states, like Virginia and Maryland, attempt to ban free blacks from their respective states altogether. Some cities such as New Orleans, forced registration of free blacks into the state, arrests and expulsed out-of-state or “alien” blacks from the city, many of whom were mainstays in the state as workers, helping the city and state with an intense labor shortage going on in the 1830s and 40s.

The profundity in this recurring history is the astonishingly predictable outcomes. The “under-class” are always a particular interest for those in politics and enterprise. As with our Antebellum history, the prospect of an underclass developing capital have always threatened right-wing politics, for they perceive immigrants' influence on the economy as a weakness in the country, something that reduces nationalism, and an overall undermining of the political structure. Similarly for free blacks in the American south, their independence had been perceived as factors that threatened the country’s safety, and it contradicted and undermined the rigid ideologies of race at its time. For our Alabama (and Arizona) immigrants, their independence and prevalence in the American economic fabric presents a threat to the American social structure and complicates the "moving-target-ideologies" of capitalism, nativity and “Americanity.” Ironically, what these officials neglected in both situations is that immigrants and free blacks have both played a profound role in American product production, and without their efforts, negative consequences are certain to come.

Employers have needed these men and women. They come with a work ethic and level of optimism that Americans lack now and have historically lacked. Their decision to see their glass as “half-full” and willingness to work jobs that most Americans find unfit is what has increased the prevalence of immigrants in the economy, as free blacks had been to southern industrial and agricultural economies.

Our outcomes? Well, in the case of those in Virginia and New Orleans, their decision to limit the use of free blacks in their economy largely attributed to the under-performance of most southern iron and industrial productions, attributing to a lacking railroad system and economic inconsistency featured by several panics and depressions. New Orleans, one of the major American cities by the 1840s, would lose out on the opportunity to become one of the most thriving American cities in part because of their restrictions of the free black population, prompting many to move West or North. As a result, the railroads that were intended to stretch along the Appalachians would be delayed by decades. However, other states would continue to deal with issues pertaining to white competition with “black labor.”

Alabama, in the midst of a global and national economy regression, is expected to lose $40 million as an effect of the new bill, which was federally permitted Sept. 28. These effects do not take into consideration losses in housing and the purchasing power of immigrants have through consumerism. It begs the question whether Alabama state legislators were fully aware of the impact their decision would have on the state.

The decision is up to you. Some will suggest that it is the correct to take jobs from foreigners in that it makes American citizens responsible for the upkeep of their economy as well. In addition, perhaps a forced deportation of illegal immigrants would lead to a substantial increase in American employment. However, before we even go to that conversation, we must consider whether the creation of jobs had really been the agenda of the Alabama officials in the first place, despite what the resolution of the bill states. Our history has shown us that our cultural and political ideologies can trump the economic needs of a nation, even while they are in the midst of intense economic hardship. The stigmas we place on the underclass is actually what defeats us the most. Fact is, while some may consider deeming a job to be “fit for Mexicans” a derogative statement, any groups’ willingness to take opportunities others spit at gives them the competitive edge, not those in the “in-crowd.” If recurring history tells us anything this time, it tells us that racism is a double-edged sword. It hurts to lose the game that you created.

Recurring History was created by Derrick Reed (Morehouse '12) to emphasize the ironies of our past. While it is reasonable to hope that humanity would learn from paralleled events from our past, we are almost helpless in ensuring such events do not happen again. Nothing is new under the sun, and almost every contemporary phenomenon has a historical precedent. While Recurring History does not attempt to influence the opinion of its readers, it urges us to continue to make connections to the present and future in order to make our history relevant.

We All Have Part In Making Flash Mobs

Blaming the issues on parents is always a complete political cop-out.

The recent increase in Philadelphia’s flash mobs has been frequent enough and disturbing enough to draw the ire of politicians in the area. The majority of these attacks have occurred in white business districts and late at night. The nature of these attacks has prompted many to speculate on whom should be the culprit in their random, late-night attacks.

Logically, the parents of the youngsters have been identified as a large source of the problem. However, that issue itself has never been a constructive one. Politicians placing “pressure” on the household has never been a method that gains results, and in the event that it did, politicians would then take credit for it. In other words, the urge for parents to do a “better job” becomes a political position that places much responsibility but very little resources on the parents themselves.

The city has, in many ways, created these flash mobs. These students are too young to operate beyond the social constructs placed in front of them. Their decision to head into Center City and antagonize people is as engendered a decision as their urge to wear the newest sneaker and freshest jeans. There are certain things the student themselves can only react to. The Philly flash mobs are a reaction to various things. They are a reaction to the funny looks, annoyed gestures, and caddy attitudes the students receive when riding downtown on the train to school during the school year. They are a reaction to four friends walking into an Armani Exchange and not being allowed into the store, even when they are ready to purchase something. In many ways, they are reacting the collective public fear we all have for young black people and young black men in particular.

What they have become, in turn, is everything we feared them to be from the beginning. Even before they started doing it, police officers, businesses, and everyday people expected these young people to get on train and attack you. When they walked into your store, you expected them to steal. And when you were walking down the street, you expected them to rob you, all before they even started. The youth felt this a long time ago. They know they don’t have to work hard at all to intimidate us. Unfortunately, there appears to be no one to articulate the needs of these groups adequately which makes these flash mobs directionless, and in many ways scary because it allows our imagination to believe the absolute worst will happen.

Ironically, our biggest fears come true. Now at any time- while on a date, hanging with your grandmother, or just relaxing to have a drink- an anonymous, seemingly-careless group of youngsters can ruin your evening on a moments’ notice, unexpectedly. More ironic, is the fact that this type of fear toward random acts of violence on our person or businesses are exactly what African-Americans had feared for decades at the hands of angry white mobs.

This is not an attempt to justify their behavior. No one should have to be hurt, especially when they themselves have nothing to do with the issue. I am asserting however, the these students are strategically and intentionally instigating a collective fear they know that many white people have for large congregations of black people and using it against them. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it but blame the parents. Figure out what “wrong” with the parents, and you might fix the problem. Until then, your businesses may suffer. The interesting part for you to consider is what would you give for them to stop?

-Derrick Reed

Father's Day Edition: Absentee Fatherhood

What would have to happen to make you leave your children?
When contemplating fatherlessness this is always a question that comes up. Then, I consider various responsibilities that I have accepted (directly or indirectly) and haven’t performed well in or marginally neglected. I consider the circumstances and my justifications for my lack of commitment to these responsibilities: They wanted too much from me; they weren’t paying me enough; I had more pressing and urgent things to do at the time; I didn’t like the people; I was going through things at the time. Excuses these may be; it does not negate the fact we have all been the point where we consider neglecting responsibility we sign up for or that is placed on us.

So before I throw damnations onto my absentee father I consider the excuses I have made.

We must consider and realize that no man plans to never be there for their children. Many of these men are outgrowths of absentee fatherhood as well, as the rest of the communities’ men (some who are absentee dads themselves) pick up the slack. In fact, growing up I knew of several men in the community who had been there for other people’s children but weren’t there for their own. Ironically, while we praise some of the men stepping up and mentoring young boys and girls, many of them could be the same people we loathe. It all depends upon one’s point of relativity. Anyways, we must consider what would make a man who loathes the father that wasn’t there for him become the same man he loathes? It is a mystery just as much as it is an epic tale of an Oedipus- like fate. Notions of Generational curses, slavery, and political and social forces all come to play when we consider to stigma of absentee fatherhood.

The fact is that every individual story is different, but let’s reconsider the various justifications that come up: I wasn’t man enough- they wanted too much from me; I wasn’t making enough money; I was going through too many changes; I never asked to be a father; I was young and ignorant; I didn’t like your mother’s family; I was being selfish. Excuses these may be; but it does not negative the reality that you CAN relate and make the connection, with respect to human lives (and in our society in general, there is not THAT much value in human life). And with respect to women, many of these justifications do not absolve women of responsibility- many of them are given the raw end of the deal, I concede this reality. However, I am not qualified to provide commentary on that matter. The fact that our humanity emanates from the woman’s body in many ways cause women to understand human life in ways I could never fathom, but I digress.

Why did they stay away? Why didn’t they come back? Think about successful people who never come back to where they’re from. Once you’re gone, and stay gone, it is much easier to forget from going back- the fear of eternal condemnation, begrudging judgments, and unforgiveable social sin consumes the heart and mind. Besides, what is the point for trying to redeem a mistake that is not redeemable? There must be a threshold we give our absentee fathers. We must make them feel like there is a chance at redemption, instead of placing all our social problems on their absence. Or should they come back, let you yell at them for a few years just to continue blaming them? I understand we are hurt, but as with everything with US, we must lick our wounds constructively to recover. Instead of telling him how he doesn’t fit the model, you can tell him where and when he can.