This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Most white genetics in the African American community come from slave owners and their sons- upper class- and not from borderers(who tended to live far away from the main slave holding areas).
I think it's more complicated than that. A lot of ex-indentured servants mingled with black servants and slaves in the early colonial period, and a supermajority of slave owners (~70%) owned less than 40 slaves, most significantly less than that. Plus, slaves near urban areas or major transportation routes were frequently rented out as industrial (for men) or domestic (for women) labor, remitting most of their wages to their owner. Those slaves obviously were much freer to develop relationships in the general population than agricultural workers bound to a single plantation or homestead.
More options
Context Copy link
I thought at least some of the minor Southern aristocracy was descended from transported and otherwise indigent emigres, and that there were overall more situations of modest households owning 1-2 slaves than of big aristocratic plantations? In any case, whatever their strengths in bravado or disease resistance or whatever it took to succeed economically in the Old South, by definition the failsons who will rape the most servant girls are not the ones carrying the best genes for impulse control and orderly prosociality.
It also seems plausible that even the enslaved women on big estates would be highly vulnerable to opportunistic sexual assault from random employees and other poor whites in the vicinity.
The way it worked was geographical: in the lowland Tidewater and Piedmont of the Eastern Seaboard, large scale plantation owners were the descendents of early settlers groups -- Barbadians in South Carolina, the famous Second Sons Cavaliers in Virginia --, while the large scale plantation owners in the more recently settled Trans Appalachian West was a mix. There were a lot of people who were descendents of settlers from the old frontier in the uplands of the Appalachians, which would include the Scotch-Irish and Scots Borderers everyone is talking about, but also just a mixture of the lower classes from up and down the coast who left the old, more settled areas to seek their fortune out West.
This group is where the planters in Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi come from. While Tidewater/Piedmont planters did up sticks and move West, they had to deal with a lot of cracker neighbors who would be beneath their notice back East.
They also were the group that pushed into the Trans-Mississippi West below the Mason Dixon line (and Missouri), including Louisiana and Texas. Sam Houston's family originated from the Shenandoah valley, for example. The exceptions there are the old French planters of Louisiana and the Spanish Royal land grantees in Texas.
So, the answer is 'Old Wealth on the coast, New Money everywhere else, mostly'.
More options
Context Copy link
While there were some descendants of involuntary transportees who owned plantations, they were by definition upwardsly mobile and successful- eg not with typical borderer genetics. And it’s my understanding that while the average slave-owning household had a single digit number of slaves, slaves were more likely to live on big plantations because those households didn’t own very many people- and that the slaves on smaller farms skewed maler than the slave population as a whole.
No doubt there was some forcible rape going on, and male promiscuity seems to be correlated mostly with bad things, it seems a lot more plausible that most slave women having babies with members of their owner’s family were essentially mistresses/concubines- the documented examples, like plaçage in southern Louisiana, or Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings, certainly seem to have been that, and most historical examples of slave systems that were less embarrassed about such things seem to have worked that way.
I am not saying that these relationships meet modern- or other reasonable- standards of consent. But I doubt that would occur to men OK with owning people.
While this doesn’t sound implausible, plantation owners themselves didn’t seem to think it was happening- they thought half-white children born on plantations were all the descendants of the owners.
More options
Context Copy link
It's also plausible that slave owners would take a dim view of randos raping their slaves, and respond with violence and/or prosecution. (this kind of activity was technically illegal on a number of levels after all)
Do you have any evidence one way or the other, or are you just speculating? (and/or operating under the assumption that White Man Bad?)
I think I was arguing that rapists and predators are by definition Bad. Also that even rich elite clans usually have a couple of members and hangers-on whose individual genetics would not be a valuable addition to anyone's family tree.
I'm not aware of any helpful published surveys supporting this, but to my mind the counter-narrative where Southern patriarchs eagerly guard the honor of their random enslaved field hands is making the more extraordinary claim. Who would even dare to come forward with a rape accusation in that context? Given the overall attitude to women of that class, why would they be believed and avenged rather than punished for causing trouble and/or assumed to have themselves been the seducers?
Slave owners ran breeding programs to produce a more docile slave population. Sexual access to female slaves probably wasn't guarded 100%, but it assuredly wasn't available to randos on the basis of nobody caring.
This was debunked decades ago. See Time on the Cross.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know who was in even closer proximity to a lot of female slaves than white guys?
Male slaves -- if the slaveholders didn't care about their slaves being raped, I would think inter-slave rape would be a much bigger problem than 'other poor whites in the vicinity' wandering onto the plantation for some raping.
I think that neither probably happened very much, for reasons along the lines of those elucidated by thrownaway.
More options
Context Copy link
They presumably wouldn't have been guarding the honor of their "random enslaved field hands" so much as their productivity. A slave was an investment. Part of that investment particularly for female slaves was breeding potential. An unexpected pregnancy with unknown paternity eats into that investment.
Slaves were property and damaging the property of the elite is generally not tolerated regardless of whether or not they actually cared about the women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link