On February 19, about two-thirds through Black History Month, the New York Times published a column by Erin Aubry Kaplan. She noted how America in celebrating the roles of African American in the nation's history overlooked something far more important:
"The institution of slavery meant that the Constitution, for all its worthy prescriptions...,[would] be a document undermined from the beginning by the founders’ tacit embrace of that institution. Black history rooted in slavery means that the country was always going to have to make ugly compromises with its own ideals, a process that became normalized. The longevity of slavery meant that business and the pursuit of profit, not justice, would be the dominant force in American life and the real energy driving even the most optimistic notions of American exceptionalism."
I have one quibble with Ms. Kaplan. The word tacit. There was nothing tacit about the compromise, which said the southern states could count male slaves as three-fifths of a citizen for its census report, thereby increasing representation of "slave" states in the House of Representatives. The representatives from the "free" states sold out people of African descent--not for the benefit of the average Southerner but for the benefit of the wealthy plantation owners whose worth was tied directly to the value of the slaves they owned. Without the "net worth" of slaves, most plantations would have gone bankrupt faster than a Trump casino--as many did after the Civil War.
Other than that one point, Ms. Kaplan makes excellent points about how American does and does not see itself versus how it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment