We can certainly talk about this if you'd like, or if you prefer email, that's fine too. And don't feel obligated to respond at all; I'm just throwing this all out there. The more and more I go through Lemkin's papers, the more little tid-bits I find on African Americans. I find it very interesting, and a bit perplexing (considering Lemkin's very adamant statements against the claims made in "We Charge Genocide"), that he sporadically uses the African American case to illustrate certain points in his "Introduction to the Study of Genocide" manuscript at the NYPL (reel 3, box 2, folder 3). For instance, in his draft chapter on "The Concept of Genocide in Social and Individual Psychology," while discussing the rationalization of mass mobs, he says "witness the usual appeal of Negro lynching parties to the protection of white womanhood." Speaking of "Genocide in Economics," he writes: "Lynching of Negroes in the American South has been correlated with business fluctuations and race-riots in the North have similarly been analyzed." And in his essay, "The Concept of Genocide in Sociology," he calls the "Blackbelt in the American South" a "potential trouble spot." (All of these are in the aforementioned reel, box, and folder at the NYPL. For help with the citations, please don't hesitate to ask.) Also, I have something else that I think is very interesting. In his research notes for Native Americans, he has a section on Indian slavery by the colonizers. The following excerpt is from this citation (Notecard 3, "Research Index Cards - Indian Slavery in Colonial Times within the Present Limits of the United States" (undated), Raphael Lemkin Collection, Manuscript Collection P-154, American Jewish Historical Society at the Center for Jewish History, New York City, New York, Box 9, Folder 11): "The system of physical bondage known as slavery is both cultural and physical genocide. "Physical genocide: The slave is often separated from his family and unable to perpetuate his group (his offspring is the property of his master, and not rarely fathered by him). The slave is physically so abused as to render him at best a poor parent (Indian mothers could not nurse their babies, etc.) and at worst a victim of physical genocide by death. "Cultural genocide: Again the frequent separation of families in slavery means the break-up of a culture. The slave is not only the physical property of his master but his spiritual property as also. The master controls his activities and the education (if any) of his offspring. He may actually prevent the salve from maintaining even the rudiments of any culture making him work all his waking hours (Spanish colonists prevented Indian from going to church since this was a waste of time). "In fact, *slavery may be called cultural genocide par excellence* [Note: the asterisks are meant to indicate original emphasis; this was underlined in Lemkin's notes]. It is the most effective and thorough method of destroying a culture, and of de-socializing human beings. By de-socializing is meant the increasing dependency and intimidation of the human under conditions of slavery so that he gradually becomes inseparable of anything but the most rudimentary types of behavior (such as hard phys. work under pressure and the satisfaction of the basic wants which are usually provided, if badly, by the master)." This is a pretty remarkable excerpt, and even though he's referring to Native Americans, I think it speaks equally as well for African Americans. I hope some of this is helpful.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Jeff's Research - I don't want to lose it and it should be shared
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Slavery is anti-Jewish and anti-Christian
This is another interesting idea from Whiteman. Not only does the following quote illustrate why some Jews preferred to stay out of the conversation surrounding the abolishment of slavery, it may hint at why still other Jews fought so adamantly for the cause.
If the societies that declared slavery un-Christian, and used Pentateuchal authority to support their views, had also declared slavery un-Jewish, applying biblical interpretation to the realities of American slavery, it is likely that the number of their Jewish members would have increased considerably. But the theological outlook of the mid-nineteenth century made this impossible. The concept of a common Judeo-Christian heritage had not yet been introduced as an apology for the religious approach to American social problems. As a result, most Jews who became involved in the great slavery conflict chose to speak out by means of independent action and kept their Jewish views in the background of their antislavery activity. The extent of this scattered activity will be discussed further on.
If the societies that declared slavery un-Christian, and used Pentateuchal authority to support their views, had also declared slavery un-Jewish, applying biblical interpretation to the realities of American slavery, it is likely that the number of their Jewish members would have increased considerably. But the theological outlook of the mid-nineteenth century made this impossible. The concept of a common Judeo-Christian heritage had not yet been introduced as an apology for the religious approach to American social problems. As a result, most Jews who became involved in the great slavery conflict chose to speak out by means of independent action and kept their Jewish views in the background of their antislavery activity. The extent of this scattered activity will be discussed further on.
Jews in the antislavery movement
I am searching for some historical background that may explain why Lemkin was so silent. This article by Maxwell Whiteman provided some insight into this issue. It would appear that the majority of Jews found the antislavery movement heavily saturated with pro-Christian rhetoric, and that was what put off many of them. It is also interesting to note that there were Jews who felt so strongly about the issue that they fought for the freedom of slaves in spite of the Christian values and anti-Semitic sentiments of pro and anti-slavery advocates.
Whiteman stated, "Hence, the hundreds of Jews who believed in the God of Israel and gave of their energies to the antislavery movement had to close their eyes to its christological influences. But practices which were perfectly in character for Christian-sponsored societies repelled many observant Jews. After the American Revolution, the door that was opened to Jewish participation in libertarian societies did not involve christological teaching. Where it was present, it was not directed to Jews. But with the increasing domination of the societies by clergymen, Jewish membership decreased. Equal participation in the struggle for human freedom was gradually, almost imperceptibly, diminishing."
Whiteman stated, "Hence, the hundreds of Jews who believed in the God of Israel and gave of their energies to the antislavery movement had to close their eyes to its christological influences. But practices which were perfectly in character for Christian-sponsored societies repelled many observant Jews. After the American Revolution, the door that was opened to Jewish participation in libertarian societies did not involve christological teaching. Where it was present, it was not directed to Jews. But with the increasing domination of the societies by clergymen, Jewish membership decreased. Equal participation in the struggle for human freedom was gradually, almost imperceptibly, diminishing."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Growth of Terror
"The Negro people fought back chiefly through the Populist parties that opposed the Wall Street trusts through the eighties and nineties of the last century. But their fight became more hopeless against the increased power of American monopoly. Terror was unleashed against them at home -- there were 1,955 recorded lynchings from 1889 through 1901, according to the minimal count of Tuskegee Institute. Side by side went terror unleashed abroad, as American imperialism entered the international arena by subjugating the Filipino, Puerto Rican and Cuban peoples and reduced many Latin-American countries to economic and political vassalage.
It was during this period of American imperialist adventure abroad that most of the state laws segregating Negroes and illegally denying them the vote were enacted in the Southern states. Disfranchisement laws were passed in Louisiana in 1898, in North Carolina and Alabama in 1901, Virginia, 1902, Georgia, 1908, Oklahoma, 1910. They but codified what was taking place in life. They disfranchised poor whites as well as Negroes, thus breaking the Populist movement. It was during this period, too, in which Negroes still had a remnant of political power, that the spurious charge of rape was elevated into an institution, an extralegal political instrument for terrorizing all Negroes, particularly those demanding their rights under the Constitution. With the charge of rape, reaction sought to justify its bestiality and to divorce from the Negroes those white allies who had helped to carry out the democratic practices of Reconstruction.
In November, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Colonel A.M. Wadell said in North Carolina, according to the Raleigh News & Observer 2 that "we are resolved" to win the elections in Wilmington, North Carolina, "if we have to choke the current of Cape Fear with carcasses. The time for smooth words has gone by, the extremest limit of forebearance has been reached." Five days later the Colonel led an armed force against the Negro-white administration of Wilmington, slaughtered scores, and announced himself the new mayor. The Government gave silent assent.
In 1900, when both men and newspapers spoke less circuitously than they do today, the San Francisco Argonaut said: "We do not want the Filipinos. We want the Philippines. The islands are enormously rich, but, unfortunately they are infested by Filipinos. There are many millions there and it is to be feared their extinction will be slow." 3 In the same vein and in the same year Senator Tillman of South Carolina took the floor of the United States Senate and announced: "We took the government away. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot Negroes! We are not ashamed of it!" 4"
See: http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html
It was during this period of American imperialist adventure abroad that most of the state laws segregating Negroes and illegally denying them the vote were enacted in the Southern states. Disfranchisement laws were passed in Louisiana in 1898, in North Carolina and Alabama in 1901, Virginia, 1902, Georgia, 1908, Oklahoma, 1910. They but codified what was taking place in life. They disfranchised poor whites as well as Negroes, thus breaking the Populist movement. It was during this period, too, in which Negroes still had a remnant of political power, that the spurious charge of rape was elevated into an institution, an extralegal political instrument for terrorizing all Negroes, particularly those demanding their rights under the Constitution. With the charge of rape, reaction sought to justify its bestiality and to divorce from the Negroes those white allies who had helped to carry out the democratic practices of Reconstruction.
In November, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Colonel A.M. Wadell said in North Carolina, according to the Raleigh News & Observer 2 that "we are resolved" to win the elections in Wilmington, North Carolina, "if we have to choke the current of Cape Fear with carcasses. The time for smooth words has gone by, the extremest limit of forebearance has been reached." Five days later the Colonel led an armed force against the Negro-white administration of Wilmington, slaughtered scores, and announced himself the new mayor. The Government gave silent assent.
In 1900, when both men and newspapers spoke less circuitously than they do today, the San Francisco Argonaut said: "We do not want the Filipinos. We want the Philippines. The islands are enormously rich, but, unfortunately they are infested by Filipinos. There are many millions there and it is to be feared their extinction will be slow." 3 In the same vein and in the same year Senator Tillman of South Carolina took the floor of the United States Senate and announced: "We took the government away. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot Negroes! We are not ashamed of it!" 4"
See: http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html
Klan
In the U.S., it just so happened that the Afro-Americans were more despised than the Jews. It was the other way around during Lemkin's boyhood. Although the Klan was openly anti-Semitic, they reserved the brunt of their terrorist activities for the minority group that was largest in number, and thus posed the biggest threat - Afro-Americans. The quote below demonstrates the extent of their extremely specific INTENT. Once again, I am reiterating Lemkin's view that if these views are made public and the nation's government does nothing about it, that governing body is as guilty as the vigilante group that is perpetrating the genocidal crimes. What Lemkin made quite clear in his statements about the matter is that he had no idea of the extent of the involvement of state and local police, and the judicial system. Yet, there were plenty of people who were trying their very best to educate him on these matters. He merely ignored them. My thoughts on his aversion to this issue are that the case of the Afro-Americans looked too much like a human rights issue and not enough like genocide to Lemkin. At that time there was a significant threat to the genocide convention being presented by those who were in favor of delaying the genocide convention for two years until the human rights convention convened. This greatly distressed Lemkin, and he fought very hard to prevent this from happening.
From "We Charge Genocide" (page 17, 18). "Typical, too, of speeches heard on many street corners in Southern cities, was that of Homer Loomis, Jr., leader of the Columbians, a racist vigilante organization chartered by the state of Georgia, on the corner of Stovall Street and Flatshoals Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia, on October 1, October 1. "We don't want anybody to join," he said, "who's not ready to get out and kill n ------ rs and Jews." Two days later at a meeting of the Columbians at 198 1/2 Whitehall Street, Atlanta, Loomis said, "There is no end to what we can do through the ballot. If we want to bury all n ------ rs in the sand, if we will organize white Gentiles politically to combat the Jew and n ------ r blocs, we can pass laws enabling us to bury all n ------ rs in the sand." During the same year, Loomis told the Imperial Kloncilium of the Ku Klux Klan, East Point Klavern, Georgia, "We propose that all n ------ rs in America be shipped back to Africa with time-bombs on board the ship as an economy measure."
From "We Charge Genocide" (page 17, 18). "Typical, too, of speeches heard on many street corners in Southern cities, was that of Homer Loomis, Jr., leader of the Columbians, a racist vigilante organization chartered by the state of Georgia, on the corner of Stovall Street and Flatshoals Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia, on October 1, October 1. "We don't want anybody to join," he said, "who's not ready to get out and kill n ------ rs and Jews." Two days later at a meeting of the Columbians at 198 1/2 Whitehall Street, Atlanta, Loomis said, "There is no end to what we can do through the ballot. If we want to bury all n ------ rs in the sand, if we will organize white Gentiles politically to combat the Jew and n ------ r blocs, we can pass laws enabling us to bury all n ------ rs in the sand." During the same year, Loomis told the Imperial Kloncilium of the Ku Klux Klan, East Point Klavern, Georgia, "We propose that all n ------ rs in America be shipped back to Africa with time-bombs on board the ship as an economy measure."
Lemkin's Moral Duty
What is also very telling is Lemkin's belief h
that he transformed his personal disaster (he lost 49 members of his family during the Holocaust) into a "moral striking force." In his memoirs, Lemkin states, "Was I not under a moral duty to repay my mother for having stimulated in me the interest in Genocide? Was it not the best form of gratitude to make a "Genocide pact" as an epitaph on her symbolic grave and as a common recognition that she an many millions did not die in vain?"
Here, I assert that Lemkin had a tremendous burden and an incredible amount of nervous energy driving him to see that the atrocities of the Jews and other groups of minorities that were overtly targeted for destruction were recognized and that these episodes were prevented from occurring in the future. For Lemkin, and many others, the plight of Afro-Americans did not seem to match up in that the crimes against them did not stem from a pronounced plan initiated by the federal government to disable or destroy them as a people. However, the Civil Rights Congress presented a very different perspective in "We Charge Genocide." I have only seen statements being made by those who contested their evidence which denied U.S. government involvement in the acts that were committed as a result of a unified effort between local police, local politicians, judges, and vigilante groups to persecute and eliminate Afro-Americans. So my frustration and confusion lies within this strange manner of publicly criticizing the U.S. for remaining quiet about genocide that was taking place against the Jews but forgiving the U.S. government for remaining quiet about the torture and murder of Afro-Americans. And this strange manner of using increased population numbers to justify the crimes is also puzzling. Wouldn't it make more sense to examine the death rate of the group that has been victimized as compared to other groups than to take this blanket approach of examining whether their numbers are increasing overall? Nowhere in the U.N. defintion of genocide or in Lemkin's writings does it indicate that the rate at which a group rebounds should be used as a criterion to establish whether or not genocide has taken place?
that he transformed his personal disaster (he lost 49 members of his family during the Holocaust) into a "moral striking force." In his memoirs, Lemkin states, "Was I not under a moral duty to repay my mother for having stimulated in me the interest in Genocide? Was it not the best form of gratitude to make a "Genocide pact" as an epitaph on her symbolic grave and as a common recognition that she an many millions did not die in vain?"
Here, I assert that Lemkin had a tremendous burden and an incredible amount of nervous energy driving him to see that the atrocities of the Jews and other groups of minorities that were overtly targeted for destruction were recognized and that these episodes were prevented from occurring in the future. For Lemkin, and many others, the plight of Afro-Americans did not seem to match up in that the crimes against them did not stem from a pronounced plan initiated by the federal government to disable or destroy them as a people. However, the Civil Rights Congress presented a very different perspective in "We Charge Genocide." I have only seen statements being made by those who contested their evidence which denied U.S. government involvement in the acts that were committed as a result of a unified effort between local police, local politicians, judges, and vigilante groups to persecute and eliminate Afro-Americans. So my frustration and confusion lies within this strange manner of publicly criticizing the U.S. for remaining quiet about genocide that was taking place against the Jews but forgiving the U.S. government for remaining quiet about the torture and murder of Afro-Americans. And this strange manner of using increased population numbers to justify the crimes is also puzzling. Wouldn't it make more sense to examine the death rate of the group that has been victimized as compared to other groups than to take this blanket approach of examining whether their numbers are increasing overall? Nowhere in the U.N. defintion of genocide or in Lemkin's writings does it indicate that the rate at which a group rebounds should be used as a criterion to establish whether or not genocide has taken place?
Monday, April 4, 2011
Coming to America
Again, from Lemkin's autobiographical notes, he is writing about his first experiences upon arriving in America. He writes, "The train stopped at Lynchburg, Virginia, and it was here that I saw for the first time, in the rest rooms of the station, the inscriptions "For Whites" and "For Colored." These intrigued me and I innocently asked the Negro porter if there were indeed special toilets for Negroes. He gave me a puzzled look, mixed with hostility, and did not answer. After seventeen years in the United States I understand now that he must have thought I was making fun of him.
As the train moved south I kept thinking about those inscriptions with all the naivete of a newcomer. I remembered that in Warsaw there was one single Negro in the entire city. He was employed as a dancer in a popular night club, where he pounded the floor with both feet as if to destroy it. Everyone enjoyed his dancing and tried to invite him for drinks. A feeling of curiosity and friendliness prevailed towards this lonely black man in Poland. But towards the Jews, I could not help thinking, their was not the same friendliness; there were three million of them, in the trades, in the professions, in other work, and their competition was felt."
Lemkin, Lemkin, Lemkin. You were so clueless.
In "Slavery By Another Name" (Blackmon, pg. 358) we find that nearly 700,000 black men with at leat 2.5 million wives and children lived as sharecroppers and rent farmers. Earlier in the book, Blackmon wrote that thousands of these men were incarcerated due to bogus debts they purportedly owed to the farmers who rented land to them or for abusing farm animals. Upon being found guilty, the sharecropper would have to pay court fees and the debt to the farmer who pressed charges against them. When they could not pay, their options were to accept extremely long sentences on building roads, even longer sentences for a farmer that would accept labor in exchange for paying the fee for them, or serve a one or two year sentence in a coal or steel mine (that ultimately resulted in death for a large number of men).
As the train moved south I kept thinking about those inscriptions with all the naivete of a newcomer. I remembered that in Warsaw there was one single Negro in the entire city. He was employed as a dancer in a popular night club, where he pounded the floor with both feet as if to destroy it. Everyone enjoyed his dancing and tried to invite him for drinks. A feeling of curiosity and friendliness prevailed towards this lonely black man in Poland. But towards the Jews, I could not help thinking, their was not the same friendliness; there were three million of them, in the trades, in the professions, in other work, and their competition was felt."
Lemkin, Lemkin, Lemkin. You were so clueless.
In "Slavery By Another Name" (Blackmon, pg. 358) we find that nearly 700,000 black men with at leat 2.5 million wives and children lived as sharecroppers and rent farmers. Earlier in the book, Blackmon wrote that thousands of these men were incarcerated due to bogus debts they purportedly owed to the farmers who rented land to them or for abusing farm animals. Upon being found guilty, the sharecropper would have to pay court fees and the debt to the farmer who pressed charges against them. When they could not pay, their options were to accept extremely long sentences on building roads, even longer sentences for a farmer that would accept labor in exchange for paying the fee for them, or serve a one or two year sentence in a coal or steel mine (that ultimately resulted in death for a large number of men).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)