R.P. Barr

The War Between the States

Maybe you have seen the ad: “5 Myths About the Civil War.”  I seem to see it all the time.  It takes you to a Washinton Post site--or maybe it's just my cookies that do that. Anyway, the author’s main point—which occupies two myths entirely and most of the other three—is that the war was all about slavery and nothing but.

 To say that anything as complex as a civil war is all about any one thing is absurd.  Fights between husband and wife are never about one thing.  There’s the stated issue, and all the baggage brought up with it.

If I remember my high school history, the first experiment with forced labor in the American colonies was with indentured servants—temporary slavery for Europeans who were promised a mule and a piece of land at the end.  It didn’t work out because the demand was greater than the supply, and because the fields in the American South were brutally hot in the summer compared to the cooler temperatures in Europe, and, as we know now, it takes at least two years to acclimatize.

 Meanwhile, slavery was already commonplace in tropical Africa.  It had been there for centuries before Europeans ever saw it and exists there today.  When sugar growing was where fortunes were to be made, Caribbean growers bought slaves from willing African sellers.  This trade—the sheer volume of it--distorted the African practice of slavery, which was a sort of social safety net—although not always benevolent.  The development of the entire continent was stunted.

 Slavery was not the end, it was the means.

 On these shores, slavery was practiced in all the colonies, but the North was not suited to large agricultural operations, and the welfare state of slavery was inefficient.  The greater influx of immigrants to the North who could be worked until they dropped and then discarded was much more attractive to factory owners.  There was none of that feeding and clothing of spouses, children and the elderly.  If a worker became sick, he was out of a job and replaced.  Slaves represented an investment that had to be nursed back to health.

 If that sounds like I think slavery was a good deal, I don’t—and it wasn’t, not for anyone.  The problem was finding people to work the cotton and tobacco plantations, to do back breaking work in blistering heat and not break down or look for alternative employment. 

 Again, there was money to be made—lots of it.  In 1860, there were 25,000,000 people living in the Northern states.  Northern factories demanded Southern raw materials and wanted them as cheaply as they want foreign products today.  The South had fewer than 10,000,000 people and 3,500,000 of them were slaves.  No wonder they felt intimidated.  The two sections of the country were quite different in culture and attitude.  Many in the South were opposed to slavery—Washington and Jefferson, for instance—although they both felt trapped in the economics of the plantation system.

There were many sources of friction, but the most glaring difference was the source of labor.  Since the North did not need slaves, it was easy to condemn the immoral South.  For their part, the South believed that their way of life depended on forced labor.

 As history would show, in 1888 Brazil became the last country in the Americas to officially ban slavery.  It’s not unreasonable to believe that the South would have found the weight of slavery to be unsustainable by that time as well.

Lincoln said that he would permit slavery if he could preserve the Union by doing so.  When Fort Sumter was fired upon, Lincoln could have withdrawn Union forces and established a smaller nation, one free of the taint of slavery.  Let the South be damned.  That’s what the Southern radicals believed would happen.

The war was fought to preserve the nation as one entity.  That was Mr. Lincoln’s War.  The South fought to preserve the system that had made them wealthy—those who were.  That system was slavery-based, but if free labor had been in abundance, slavery in and of itself would not have been a reason to fight.

 Did prejudice and arrogance and religious justification play their parts in the defence of slavery?  Damn right they did.  But, very few social practices endure if they are not also economicaly beneficial.  Saying it is otherwise is another myth. 

 

Why Juan Williams should have been fired

Juan Williams was reportedly fired by National Public Radio for saying that people on airplanes dressed in Muslim garb made him nervous about their intentions.  Both conservatives and liberal commentators have condemned NPR.  I wonder if they would be so quick to attack if Williams had been a white reporter who said that groups of young black men on street corners made him fearful?  What would happen to such a reporter’s credibility?

If we allow Williams to speak of his irrational fears, then he should still have been fired for not learning anything as a reporter.  Think back on all the photographs you have seen of Muslim  terrorists: the 9/11 crew, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, etc.  Did any of them wear long robes or bin-Laden beards or akaru (the head scarf with the rope around it)?  Of course not.  --Well, I'll concede a scruffy beard on Richard Reid, but even with it, he looked more goofy than threatening.

Terrorists want to blend in so they can get closer to their targets.   They do not want to draw attention to themselves.  Terrorists look more like Williams, or you, or me or an Army doctor.

 But, Williams is afraid of robes and beards.  He has learned nothing.  Reporters should be fired for stupidity.

Waiting for Reality to Blink

I am old enough to remember a time when liberals were pie-in-the-sky delusional and conservatives staunch realists.  Remember world peace and flower power versus stay-in-school and the work ethic.  The positions on the reality scale have now reversed.  Who’d have thunk it?

One example is from NPR [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129305280], a little microcosm of the larger economy.  Modoc County, California has only one hospital, and it is on economic life support.  If the hospital doesn’t get an infusion of cash, it may have to close its doors.  The nearest alternative is hours away—that's in the summer time when the roads are clear.  There are a number of elderly in the area who depend on the hospital for their very survival.  In addition, the hospital is the largest employer in the county.  If it closes, so will a lot of other things.  Property values will fall, and the consequent further drop in county revenues will cause other cutbacks to services.  The only apparent solution is a property tax increase to save the hospital.  It is opposed by at least one man who is funding the anti-tax-increase movement.  The problem with preaching fiscal responsibilty at this point is that there may be no-one left to hear the lesson.  What's more important, your point or your life?

There is a similar psychology at work regarding Islamic mosques.  The anti-mosque legion in New York does not want a place where Moslems can peacefully gather and engage in recreational activities as well as sometimes pray.  Remember a few months ago when these same people (probably), did not want to try and punish Muslem terrorists in lower Manhatten either?  And, if a few blocks from the place where New Yorkers cannot even erect a memorial in nine years time, is too close, then what is the reason for objecting to a mosque in Tennessee where they allow church members to handle poisonous snakes?  Or in California where enemas are given for entertainment and getting high passes for a religious experience?

This anti-Islamic sentiment is not only bigoted, it is delusional and dangerous.  

Look at the guy who went around stabbing and slashing African-Americans (and a few who resembled African-Americans).  We know what kind of person does that.  We know the profile.  --Except this guy was from Israel.  Okay, new profile.  We've read about the settlers who attack Palestinian children on their way to school.  He just couldn’t find any Palestinians.  -–Wait a minute, he was an Israeli Arab, not a Jew.  That’s easier.  We know about Hamas and that bunch.  Maybe he was trying to start a race war in the U.S.  --Except that he wasn’t Moslem.  He was an Israeli Arab Christian.  Stuff that in your profile and smoke it.

Then there were the killers who escaped from prison in Arizona.  A nasty trio, illegal immigrants from south of the border, right?  Nope.  Good ol’ American white boys.

 9/11 was a bad thing, but in spite of the horrific death toll, it was only one attack.  We lose more Americans to drunk drivers on a regular basis.  And, most Moslems don’t drink.

 Our economy is in the crapper thanks to a bunch of mostly white Christians and Jews who pushed us off a cliff for a quick profit.  You've got to look at who your real enemies are.

 There are a couple million Moslems in the United States, and they are nearly all here legally, unlike the devout Roman Catholics that are flocking over the border.  The other thing about American Moslems is that they are not trying to kill us.  Even with a few radicalized young men, they are not nearly as dangerous as the ethnic organized crime groups who are also nearly exclusively Christian.

 Worldwide, there are 1.5 billion Moslems who may not like us very much—although many do—but are not trying to kill us.  A handful of them are using their religion to manipulate the ignorant.  They are practicing the lessons of Machiavelli.  If you are unhappy with your lot in life, blame the other, the outsider.  People will put up with the failures of their leaders if they feel threatened.

 In this country, there are some who have read The Prince, but I see a stronger influence by a more modern political thinker: Joseph Goebbels who was proponent and perfector of the “big lie.”  In case you’ve forgotten, the theory was that if you tell a big lie boldly enough and often enough, the masses will come to believe it.  Call a social liberal both a Nazi and a communist; say that he is foreign born despite all evidence to the contrary, and that he is a Moslem only a year or two after attacking him for going to his choice of churches—say those things often enough and loud enough and they will gain traction.  Goebblels would be so proud.

Reconsidering Willie McGee

On May 7, 1951, 35 year-old Willie McGee was executed in Laurel, Mississippi for the crime of rape.  He was a black man—no white had ever been executed for rape—and his victim was a 32 year-old white woman named Willette Hawkins.  His case was an international sensation at the time.  Recently, his grand-daughter, Bridgette McGee-Robinson learned of her grandfather’s fate and returned to Laurel to learn more—the truth if possible.  Her story can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126539134

 The town is still profoundly divided on what happened that autumn night in 1945.  Whites believe the prosecution’s charges.  Stepping back in time, we would see a town, like many in the South, divided by a rail line, with whites on one side of the tracks and blacks on the other.  One interviewee said that as a black child of 6, he knew better than to go on the other side of the tracks.  Yet, McGee allegedly crossed the tracks that night.  According to the charges, he went to a house and crept up on a frail mother of three who slept on the floor next to her sick child while her husband slept in a back bedroom.  McGee held a knife to the throat of the woman’s baby and forced her to have relations with him.  The popularly held opinion from the other side of the tracks held that McGee and the woman had been having an affair and that the accusation arose from the woman being caught having sex with a black man.  The black community believed that version, and still does.  In fact, some members of the black community assert that McGee was playing cards, and not even at the scene of the alleged attack.  The defense did not present this account at trial for fear of inflaming the all-white, all-male jury.

 As someone who grew up in the South, I know that the conviction doesn’t signify anything.  The jury deliberated for less than 3 minutes.  The trial itself was little more than a show.

 The NPR story ends with an interview of the prosecutor’s son.  He says that his father took a bottle of whiskey into a meeting with McGee an hour before the execution, and asked McGee to tell the truth.  The NPR story is a good one, and I am not going to spoil it by revealing what the prosecutor’s son says McGee revealed.  Besides, it may not be true.  McGee was leaving family behind, and may have been thinking of his legacy.  If the defense version was true, he also had a lover whose reputation he may have wanted to protect.

The story did not include the questions I would have asked to help determine what happened, so I will ask them here.  Just don’t expect me to provide the answers, although I believe the answers are out there.

 First is whether Willie McGee had any other brushes with the law.  None were mentioned.  Sex offenders usually commit their crime multiple times, and McGee was about 30 at the time.  That seems a little late to begin deviant practices.   Rape is also either between people who know each other or a crime of opportunity.  Was the Hawkins house convenient to someone crossing the tracks at night?  Did McGee have a relationship with Hawkins or her husband that might have motivated him to commit this violent act?  McGee drove a wholesale grocery delivery truck, but according to him, he became familiar with Ms. Hawkins when he waxed her floor a year or two before.

 The houses of that time had wooden floors, possibly covered with linoleum.  They creak.  Doors squeak.  Did anyone test to see how much noise would be caused by someone creeping into the darkened house?  Especially by someone unfamiliar with the floor plan and furnishings?  How did he find the woman who was not in her bed, but with her child?

It is politically correct these days to assume that in cases in which Southern blacks were denied proper trials the accused were innocent.  Was there a rape at all?

 If there had been a consensual affair, would the woman have allowed her lover to die rather than humiliate herself by admitting the romance?  Actually, yes.  That sort of thing has happened.  McGee did not speak in his own defense.  Would a man on trial for his life keep quiet to protect a woman who was willing to let him die in the electric chair?  Actually, the defense of claiming an affair with a married white woman would not have been helpful.

 If there had been an affair, why would Hawkins accuse him?  Perhaps she believed the romance had run its course and McGee wanted to continue.  Another version had it that McGee wanted to end it and Hawkins reacted as a woman scorned.  There is the rumor that he was also having an affair with Hawkins' maid.  Or, husband Troy Hawkins knew that something was going on and forced his wife to clear her name.  Maybe a neighbor had seen McGee entering or leaving the house, and Hawkins had to explain that.  She could simply have felt guilty about the affair, and blamed McGee to scourge her own sins.

 Except that she didn’t accuse him directly.  Hawkins claimed that in the dark, she didn’t know who her attacker had been.  But, McGee didn’t show up for work the next day and fled town.  Some of his friends placed him near the Hawkins home.  

Whatever the truth, it is a fascinating story, and now, half a century after the fact, there is a book about it, The Eyes of Willie McGee by Alex Heard.  It was a case that outgrew both the individuals involved and the facts.  Some crimes are like that.  Even today.    

Detecting racism

Are attacks on the president’s health care proposal racist?  Of course, but that is not the whole story.  There are those who are legitimately concerned about features of the plan.  The way to tell the difference between the racists and those who are issue-driven is to measure the volume, the inflammatory words they use and whether they disseminate disinformation.

 For example, would Joe Wilson have heckled Bill Clinton addressing a joint session of Congress?  God—and everybody else--knows that Clinton was vilified by Republicans at a level beyond anything before seen in the modern era, but no-one shouted back at him when he addressed Congress.  Race may not have motivated Wilson’s opposition to health care reform, but it gave him that extra little push when Obama was speaking.

 Similarly, would Kanye West have taken the microphone away from Rihanna or Janet Jackson?  Of course not, but a white country singer did not deserve the same respect.  Racism is all around, and does not even have to be in the front of our minds. 

 I learned about the subtleties of discrimination in high school.  Ours was a consolidated school that drew students from three towns.  It was also all white until the school accepted a couple black students in my senior year.  My government class was all white.  This was the situation when my teacher asked me to select students from the class for parts in a role-playing exercise.  I studied the class roster and very carefully picked those individuals that I thought would do the best jobs.  When I handed in the list, my teacher glanced at it and asked me if I was aware that all of the people I had selected were from my town.  I had not realized that.  Where they were from had even entered my mind.  There had been no discrimination in my heart, but by picking those whose virtues I knew best, I had in fact discriminated.  So, I made up a new list, and was gratified at how good the people were whom I had inadvertently slighted before.  The moral is that discrimination is proven by the results of an action, not by the stated intent.

Racism has become a very nasty charge.  For instance, I continue to be confused by those who deny the holocaust.  Denial is not only an offence to those who perished, but also to those who worked so hard for their extermination.  I would think that those who hate the Jews, the Gypsies and the assorted other targets of the holocaust would claim that the millions who were murdered was a good start, a splendid effort that was stopped too soon.  But, look, the anti-Semites who speak out do not praise the Nazis for their efforts, they claim that the Third Reich is misunderstood and blamed for things that did not occur.  That is how ugly the charge has become, that even those who promote and plot the murder of other races and ethnicities today deny the achievements of the most successful pogromists of all time.

 The people who do not want illegal immigrants to be benefited by the health care bill aren’t really worried  about the expense.  Down deep, they do not want non-English-speaking, dark-skinned people to receive health care at all.  Shut them out of our hospitals and let them die on the sidewalks, or go back where they came from and starve there.  Even the most vocal of the health care opponents will deny that that is their intent, but it is the effect they seek.

 Not all conservatives are racist.  Neither are all liberals.  Not all whites and not all blacks.  But, look at the downstream effects of what people promote.  As I learned in art school, your work is what you intend it to be, and it must stand on its own without explanation or excuse.