Racheal, the middle child, misogynist, anti-intellectual, and incredibly racist

[PennySycamore]

@dairyfreelife,  I live in a middle class neighborhood in the Greenville SC metro and my neighborhood is racially/ethnically mixed and has been since we moved here in '89.  We have black, Latino, and Asian neighbors as well as several interracial couples.  One couple are the parents of one of my youngest daughter's friends since kindergarten.  Our neighborhood is not perfect, but I like it.  A lily white neighborhood would be so boring!

[FeministShrew]

Waves @PennySycamore! We're neighbors! 

ETA I finally looked at her blog. I don't like commenting negatively on people's looks because I have self-esteem issues myself. 
But as for everything else, ugh. How, I might ask, is someone "homeshcooled from birth"?

Bless her heart.

[ladyamylynn]

Honestly if she enjoys the all-white pastoral lifestyle she should move to the PNW. This area has a lot going for it but racial diversity and integration are not two of them. Plenty of ignorant hicks proudly fly the idiot flag, too. Portland is shockingly white and racist for such a liberal city.

[apandaaries]

She seems to take special pride in having traveled a lot as a "military brat," but it also said her father retired when she was 13.  Despite the fact that she is living in what was her grandmother's home (and also where her father grew up), she prefers to claim she is a Southern girl.  I don't think she really has any idea of how the greater world works.  

But I'd like to pick apart this shitty writing and thinking, too:

Spoiler

Well, as I have become more and more confident in my Confederate-ness and more and more nailed to my gray heritage (to the extent that I barely ever introduce myself to anyone without pointing out the fact that I am a Southerner), I have naturally had to look at the subject. I have yet to sit down and do a comprehensive study on slavery, but I cannot say that I see, from Scripture, that slavery in and of itself is a moral wrong. I'm not trying to justify the fact that many of my Confederate heroes owned slaves--or even that my very own great-great-great grandfather owned eight. (Though, I confess, I have more moral issues with the fact that he fathered a child with one of them, Rachel Davis. However, even the outcome of that demonstrates that blacks and whites were "family" as H.K. Edgerton says--for, as far as we can determine, my great-great Uncle Lloyd was as much the son of John as his other, fully white, sons. I actually think Lloyd, being the youngest, was the one that took care of his aging father. That is speculation, but founded on actual reasons which I won't go into here.)

So, is slavery a moral wrong? I do not think so:

So in this paragraph + one line, we read her confessing that she's not done a "comprehensive study on slavery." She's admitting some ignorance, but then just barrels on as stupidly as before.  Also, as a SOTDRT graduate, we should already be prepared for what her self-selected course would result in, ie, confirmation of the fact that she was naturally right about everything.  

Then she attempts, I believe, a humble-brag about how her g.g.g. grandfather owned eight slaves.  However, her moral quandaries are not about slave-owning, but about how he had a child with a person who had no legal rights.  She can lie to herself as much as she wants, but she just publicly proclaimed her g.g.g. grandfather not just a racist, but also a rapist. 

 If one cannot consent, then one has been raped.  If history has anything to tell us (and it does), it's that this kind of behavior happened on a regular basis.  Let's not pretend that they had a consensual relationship, or that she was raped "just once" to conceive that kid.  

She is so blatantly uninformed that she thinks that this g.g. uncle had a choice in whether or not he stayed on to take care of his aging, racist, rapist father. I mean, in other blog posts she mentions that slavery was a choice, that slaves were paid, that if they bought their release, they were given acres and a mule by their former owners.  Here are more of her ignorant blatherings:

Spoiler

I see I neglected to mention that when a slave was freed in the South, he was provided with the necessary means to provide for himself. He wasn't just told, "You're free--go be warmed and be filled", but his former master *by law* was required to supply him the means to support himself, often times in the form of a number of acres and a mule.

I disagree with your assessment that "American slaves were fairly lucky if they had decent clothes, let alone money." The following information comes from the Slave Narratives. The money bit first: master's frequently bought produce off their slaves--who often had their own private gardens. These slaves at times held several hundreds of dollars in gold, but were content to remain in their position. Not, I grant you, that that would justify slavery as an institution if it were morally wrong. (Ends do not justify means.) 

Secondly, and I would ask you to humour me briefly, imagine for a moment that you own slaves, most likely passed down to you by your parents. Do you, as a Christian, clothe them decently, see to it that they are well fed and have a doctor when they need one, all this in return for the labour that they preform for you? Of course. Why do we think that it would be any different in the South of the 1800's? Indeed, many, many slave owning families were devote [sic because the bitch is dumb] Christians, who had inherited the slaves from previous generations. They cared for both the physical and spiritual needs of their slaves. The more I learn (and I have tons more to learn on the subject, I admit), the more I see that Southern slaves had more freedom that we initially credit them with.

[from a comment further down on the thread]  Anyway, I think, were I in the position of a person receiving a runaway slave into my home, I would attempt to determine why said slave had run off. If he had legitimate reasons (such as abuse), I would break man's law in a heart beat. On the other hand, if he had no legitimate reasons, I would, as Paul, speak to the man and inform him—from Scripture—that it was his duty to return to his master. I would by no means attempt to force him to return though, but leave it to his own conscience. (I find that this subject brings the question to my mind as to how I would act if I were a slave myself. Being born free and of a rather independent nature, I would probably have difficulty in being the most submissive servant. In my rebellion against a master, I would be rebelling against God. Providing, of course, that that rebellion was against just and reasonable requests and duties. Any command to sin should and must be withstood no matter what one's station in life.)

What a bunch of bullshit.  She keeps repeating that she's not done a comprehensive study, but also keeps asserting shitty falsehoods based on biased reporting.  She most commonly imagines herself as a slave-owner, not as a slave, but when she tries to imagine being powerless, she says it'd be difficult.  

Wonder what mental gymnastics are involved to pretend that her way back grandfather was a devoted Christian, not a racist rapist who saw women workers as a way to entertain his lusts.  Wonder if her grandfather had other kids that he sold earlier, as that was not uncommon.  That bitch needs to read some Frederick Douglass and the Crafts to discover what life was really like.  (Ellen and William Craft, to put it mildly, amazing: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-escape-from-slavery-of-ellen-and-william-craft-497960/ )

 

[FeministShrew]

I'm willing to bet that her problem with great-great- great grandfather fathering a child with his slave has nothing to do with the fact she was a slave & had no choice, but rather that he committed adultery.

[formergothardite]

I don't think she is unattractive and she looks better in candid pictures where she is laughing and smiling. She just can't pull off the serious, stare wistfully off into the distance, up at the sky or down at the ground look. 

But her soul is ugly to the core. She is willfully ignorant because facing reality would mean that she could no longer glorify people who fought to create a country founded on enslaving people. She doesn't seem to grasp that no matter how well a slave was treated, in the end they were still enslaved. They were nothing more than an object owned. She doesn't see that what she is doing is actually dehumanizing an entire group of people. She is turning people, who in her mind God created, into objects. But she won't and does't want to see this. 

 

[apandaaries]

2 minutes ago, FeministShrew said:

I'm willing to bet that her problem with great-great- great grandfather fathering a child with his slave has nothing to do with the fact she was a slave & had no choice, but rather that he committed adultery.

Absolutely.  She cannot fathom what slavery was truly like, and she's limited herself to narratives that already support her preconceived notions of things.  In her blind faith to the Confederacy, she would like to assume everything was just as she would imagine it, rather than how it was.

Bet Gone with the Wind is one of her favorite movies, too. She's all about white washing whatever facts she can.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

If the runaway slave "had no legitimate reasons." Jesus. Being forced to work without pay (because, contrary to her assertions, a lack of freedom and compensation are the defining characteristics of slavery) isn't a legitimate reason? Having your family torn apart isn't a legitimate reason? These folks love to imagine the plantation as a paragon of family values, but the entire system was built on the destruction of families.

Also, it's not hard to find actual photographs of slavery conditions. Living in a crowded, broken down shack and wearing ragged clothes was the norm. Meanwhile, the people who built their profits entirely on the labor of enslaved people are relaxing in luxurious homes. That alone should tell you that this is a system of theft, not a loving familial relationship.

[FeministShrew]

But but but... the slaves had the privilege of being in America! And learning about Jeeeeesssuuuusss! That makes it all ok!
Of course slaves were happy. That's why we have "negro spirituals," mammy dolls, and Aunt Jemia. Just ask Paula Deene. 
Wait - did Paula Deene write a book on slavery for confederate homeschoolers? Or do they just use Gone With the WInd?

Insert eyeroll.

[apandaaries]

6 minutes ago, FeministShrew said:

But but but... the slaves had the privilege of being in America! And learning about Jeeeeesssuuuusss! That makes it all ok!
Of course slaves were happy. That's why we have "negro spirituals," mammy dolls, and Aunt Jemia.

Christianity has been used time and again to justify the most reprehensible actions.  

And Rachael gives us yet another chance to see it all in action.

[Georgiana]

23 minutes ago, amandaaries said:

Bet Gone with the Wind is one of her favorite movies, too. She's all about white washing whatever facts she can.

Gone with the Wind is one of MY favorite movies.  It's a masterpiece of cinema.  It has strong performances from some of the greatest actors and actresses of the era.  It's masterfully directed.  It contains, IMO, one of the best depictions of the atrocity that was Sherman's March to the Sea/Burning of Atlanta and the struggles associated with Reconstruction, two topics that are generally glossed over or toned down in mainline history.

There's nothing wrong with appreciating Gone with the Wind so long as you also appreciate what it TRULY is, in both book and movie form.  

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I'm just going to state the obvious, because Miss Rachael seems to have missed it (or more likely refused to see it).

Rachael, sweetie, sit down for this.  You have a part black gg uncle. You probably have biracial cousins. You are related to people like Pres. Obama.

It's like this:   Your ggg grandfather had child with a slave. This means gg uncle was biracial - i.e. part black.  He was half brother to all the "white" children your ggg grandfather had.   This means that the white grandchildren of your ggg grandfather had a biracial uncle.  If this gg uncle married, his children were 1st cousins to his half-siblings' children (the ggg grandfather's grandchildren)

Since you are descended from the white side of the family, it is entirely possible you have biracial cousins. In this generation you are 3rd cousin to the gg grandchild of the biracial gg uncle.

TL; DR  Rachel, you have black people in your family.

It's a fact . Accept it, Maybe even (gasp) get to know these people. But check your racism, Confederate-ness and nailed up gray heritage at the door first

 

[apandaaries]

@Georgiana do we really think that Rachael would appreciate any of the complexities of that life at that time?  Or would she interpret Mammy's actions as further evidence of the good nature of Christian slave owners?  And furthermore, ignore the fact that even in 1940, Hattie McDaniel and the other Black actors couldn't attend the premiere of the film they worked on?

I have known a few too many people who've both loved that movie and harbored incorrect, racist views about slavery, subtle and otherwise.  Those portrayals of slavery and the South were more than a bit romanticized.  People are far too quick to watch a movie and assume it's true, rather than reading and researching more about the topic. 

Personally, I'd like to see every screening of Gone with the Wind paired with 12 Years a Slave.  There should be a more balanced and honest depiction than what GwtW shows. 

[formergothardite]

At one point she tried to defend her views on a forum but ended up:

Quote

essentially slunk coward-like out of the picture.

The reason is because she knows she is totally ignorant on the subject. Why is she so die-hard into a belief system that she has barely studied and admits she can't defend?

Quote

 I am quite obviously not as well read...and therefore less prepared. In addition, when I DO have a "quote" I can never remember where I read it, or where to find it again, etc. In other words, I can't source myself (which I've seen multiple demands of in my short time back in the forums.) It really is a good idea, being able to source oneself.

If she has a real quote, she can google it and easily find a source. If she can't do that, then she has a fake information. 

Quote

I have not yet determined how much of Southern slavery was down-right wrong. 

All of it. Even by biblical standards it was all wrong. 

It is clear she wants to stay ignorant and has no desire to actually study the subject because if she did she might just have to find out that she has been wrong all the time. 
 

[Georgiana]

@amandaaries I don't think SHE appreciates it, no.  However, the way your original post was worded bordered a little too close for my comfort to implying that all people who have GwtW as one of their favorite movies are racist.  Yes, people who have bad world views tend to like the movie because it reinforces said world view, HOWEVER, GwtW is on NO level the same as The Birth of a Nation, for example.  

Movies in general do not tend to be perfect.  The physics are off in Interstellar, so while it might be EASIER for people who do not have a grasp on those to enjoy the movie, it does not mean it is impossible or even unlikely for someone who is familiar with them to also like the movie.  It's not fair to imply that if you liked Interstellar that you are ignorant, for example.  There's A LOT else to like about that film. 

There is something REALLY important about GwtW, and that is that it is the SOUTHERN account of what happened.  It was sourced from primary sources often forgotten in mainline history.  Even the romanticization is important because it shows you HOW certain sections of the South processed, explained away, or conceived of their history and defeat.  You want to understand WHY people reacted the way they did to Reconstruction?  To modern efforts that are seen as TOO similar to Reconstruction (such as forced integration)?  Why they still fly what they think is the Confederate Flag?  GwtW tells you that. 

The accounts of the losers are never going to be great or accurate because the victors often overwrite them, repress them, or wipe them out.  Those that survive are often heavily fragmented, with romanticized parts to fill in the blanks.  GwtW is hardly unique in that regard.  Even Mary Boykin Chesnut's diaries were likely edited after the fact, and I know of no better primary source from the Southern elite in existence.  If there's something White Conquering Armies love, it's burning the shit of the losers.  If you want to subject a people, you first silence their voice.  

You don't have to pair it with screenings of other movies, though that would be a GREAT idea for a discussion about narratives and perspective.  You just need to reinforce what it is and what its proper context/role in the historical narrative is.  

tl;dr: Historical accuracy is not the be all or end all unless you are a history book or a documentary.  The HUMAN element and the HUMAN side of the story are often just as important and tell us VITAL things.  Often, the presence of a biased, inaccurate, or unknowable perspective is essential to the work because no human living in the moment is ever un-biased, fully accurate, or has a full command of ALL the facts.  

[catlady]

3 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

  Quote:

 I am quite obviously not as well read...and therefore less prepared. In addition, when I DO have a "quote" I can never remember where I read it, or where to find it again, etc. In other words, I can't source myself (which I've seen multiple demands of in my short time back in the forums.) It really is a good idea, being able to source oneself.

 

If she has a real quote, she can google it and easily find a source. If she can't do that, then she has a fake information. 

that was my first thought when i read that; if she's online, she has internet access and can, you know, *look stuff up*!!  i couldn't decide if she's lazy or dumb.  i'm leaning towards a good degree of laziness, since she's aware that she's not well-read and still seems to refuse to do anything about it.  she should sit her ass down and do that comprehensive study on slavery, and maybe pay attention the next time she ventures into a forum.  

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, NachosFlandersStyle said:

If the runaway slave "had no legitimate reasons." Jesus. Being forced to work without pay (because, contrary to her assertions, a lack of freedom and compensation are the defining characteristics of slavery) isn't a legitimate reason? Having your family torn apart isn't a legitimate reason? These folks love to imagine the plantation as a paragon of family values, but the entire system was built on the destruction of families.

So besides the complete lack of empathy, imagination, and basic intelligence one must have as an adult to excuse slavery, I also don't understand the political hypocrisy. I guarantee that this chick loses it over gun control, arguing that she has the God-given right to protect herself from tyranny. I bet the same goes for her belief in the right of businesses and individuals to have religious objections to gay/trans people and support for school vouchers/homeschooling laws. 

She rejects tyranny and thinks that our personal choices should not be constrained by an all-encompassing authoritarian power. So what tyranny could be greater than a person literally being owned by another person?

[Anonymousguest]

Wow. It's hard to serve formulate words for a response to this one. The only way a person could think slavery was ok and morally acceptable, regardless of how the slaves were treated, is to believe that the people kept as slaves were not human. 

I also have not done a study of the Bible regarding slavery, but I know which to know slavery in the Bible was not the same as it was on the antebellum south. And there are rules about how to treat a slave, how long they could be enslaved, how they could buy back their freedom, etc. And the New testament that ALL people  are made in God's image and therefore all hold the same intrinsic value.That we all hold the same value but that some can OWN another is mutually exclusive. I don't understand how a Christian can believe slavery was/is ok.

Does she really believe that if someone kidnapped her, took her to another country, or even another county, kept her against her will to work in their house or on their farm (we'll leave sex out of this hypothesis even though the rest of us know rape was a part of life for slaves because she does believe that is immoral) and paid her nothing she would be ok with it and serve them cheerfully because she would be serving God? 

[apandaaries]

[mention=12654]Georgiana[/mention] History is written by the victors, certainly.  But for me, with GwtW's perspective is from those in second place.  Once slavery was over, Jim Crow moved right in.  Black people went from enslavement to legal second-class citizens without nearly the same rights as white people.  Sharecropping became the new way to keep a family financially enslaved. From what I can tell, one system of enslavement was basically  traded for another one, with slightly less brutality; "separate but equal" does not exist. Lynch mobs still roamed the lands to enforce this violent system, and rape was still a nonstop worry for women of color. 

We can see how elite white Southerners responded, and there are hints about how less well-off whites survived...but the formerly enslaved people?  We see almost nothing of them, except Mammy.  GwtW will always fail for me in that respect; it is so focused on the white experience and perspective that it neglects other views completely. Do we ever see a hint of the brutality that kept Black people down?  Historical accuracy will always be important to me, which means a more honest and thorough depiction of the events that occurred.   

There's also the issue of (generally speaking) the white perspective having a huge amount of power in media creation.  We have GwtW, but no one has put Frederick Douglass's life onscreen for such a large audience (he's someone that Rachael could really learn from, especially given how he learned to read.  Douglass describes the mistress who taught him the alphabet as a Christian, kind-hearted woman, who became as ruined by slavery as he was (for a time).  Her heart went hard as she was taught by her husband how slaves should be treated, and if she caught him with a book, he was whipped). Why aren't there more films that show the reality of slavery?  Even if Scarlett never personally whipped a slave, would she have never seen it? Would her life experiences have failed to show her that reality? Or was that seen as something so irrelevant as to not warrant a scene in the film (even though it's a massively long film and one more scene wouldn't have hurt)?* It's just more whitewashing (first typed "shitewashing" here...what are you trying to say, subconscious?).

Nothing in GwtW comes close to this honesty.  Nothing reflects the depth of what the slaves endured.  That's a massive oversight that I just cannot tolerate.  And the problem I've run into with GwtW fans is that a lot of them never take any of that into consideration. Neither the film nor the book attempts to truly humanize the people of color; they are stereotypes.  In my experience, the people who've been fans of this work have generally empathized with one of the white heroines, without thinking much of the Black people who supported so much of what goes on behind the scenes. If you can bring a more nuanced appreciation to the film, good on you.  You are a rare one, from what I can tell.  

*You'll have to excuse me, but it's been about 20 years since I read the novel, and it's not likely that I'll pick it up again any time soon.  It upset me to read it, and my time on this planet is limited.

 

[AlwaysExcited]

I will never understand slavery apologists. Because I'm pretty sure they identify themselves with slave owners and I just can't get my mind around that. A desire to OWN another person. 
I would actually like this chic or someone else from her crowd to come here and explain, because I can. not. understand. at. all.

[Anonymousguest]

11 minutes ago, AlwaysExcited said:

I will never understand slavery apologists. Because I'm pretty sure they identify themselves with slave owners and I just can't get my mind around that. A desire to OWN another person. 
I would actually like this chic or someone else from her crowd to come here and explain, because I can. not. understand. at. all.

They must see it as some kind of exotic pet ownership? I don't get it either. The thought of it brings tears to my eyes

[AlwaysExcited]

25 minutes ago, Anonymousguest said:

They must see it as some kind of exotic pet ownership? 

Yeah, but most people treat their pets better. 

It makes me sick. 

[Hmmm_idolatry]

3 hours ago, FeministShrew said:

I'm willing to bet that her problem with great-great- great grandfather fathering a child with his slave has nothing to do with the fact she was a slave & had no choice, but rather that he committed adultery.

I suspect that it has to do with the fact that he had sex with a black person.  I think it's just good, old fashioned racism here that fuels her issue with having a non-white relative. 

I find it hilarious that this idiot goes on and on about how wonderful life as a slave and slave owner was and then says she'd find it difficult.  Racheal honey, difficult is the least of your issues. You wouldn't last an hour. It would be demeaning, terrifying, traumatizing, and you wouldn't be able to craft an identity for yourself.  You certainly wouldn't be able to introduce yourself to others as a southerner and a middle child.  

[older than allosaurs]

49 minutes ago, AlwaysExcited said:

I will never understand slavery apologists. Because I'm pretty sure they identify themselves with slave owners and I just can't get my mind around that. A desire to OWN another person. 
I would actually like this chic or someone else from her crowd to come here and explain, because I can. not. understand. at. all.

Maybe so, but I think some other somewhat more understandable attitudes may come into play. One is about biblical inerrancy. Doug Wilson's defense of chattel slavery, if I remember right, basically says that since there are rules in the Bible for how slaves should behave and how masters should treat them, slavery must be compatible with Christianity. Otherwise why have divinely inspired rules about it? Some people may get stuck on "the Bible says it's ok and that's all I need to hear." I've come to think anyway that people who believe the Bible is divinely inspired and literally true get so intellectually warped by the requirements of believing impossible stuff that they damage their critical thinking skills in general.

The other thing I've noticed in life and especially in the classroom, is that lots of people see the past as a different world entirely. People were different then. They didn't mind being slaves. Their lives and experiences have no connection to how we live and feel today. So some of the same folks who are out crusading against human trafficking now--it's a big deal in some of the conservative congregations around here--aren't nearly so concerned about what slavery was like for their fellow Americans in 1860.

pure speculation....

 

[Lurky]

So I'm British, born in London, and there have been Black & Other Minority Ethnic people in London ever since there was a London, because of trade routes.  Then, with the Romans, men joined the army to get citizenship, and were posted to places far away from their homeland, for all kinds of reasons, but essentially loyalty to the army.  So the Roman works in the UK are most likely made by people from North Africa and the Middle East, lots of whom stayed and started families here.

During Elizabethan times, there were something like 5,000 Black/Minority Ethnic people living in London, again because of trade - there wouldn't be the play Othello, eg, if there weren't Black people in London.  And as more and more trade opportunities opened up, there were more and more BOME people living in all the port cities.

The thing is, it's not actually that easy to see any of this, because when BOME people married white people, and their children married white people, after a few generations, all you can tell is that someone maybe tans more easily, is more freckled, or has curlier hair - but because the differences between the races are so superficial, it doesn't make a difference at all.  So tons of white UK people have Black ancestry they have no idea about.  And this is the same for everywhere in Europe where there are ports - and especially Spain and Italy, where because a lot of the land was ruled by the North African Muslims for centuries, there was a lot of inter-marriage there, too.  

Multi-culturalism is historical, for Western Europe - from the Romans to the Vikings, right up to now.  The idea that there were any specifically "white" nations is super-ignorant.