undefined | Better HN

0 pointswpietri4y ago0 comments

I believe you were told that. But I believe that's pretty ahistorical. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_S...

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-new-england-rhode-islan...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-black-people-a...

And that's just the basic legal stuff, like not being property. When you look at actual attitudes, Northerners were quite racist. You could read, for example, Foner's "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery". It covers quite well how even Lincoln was quite racist in a way typical of the time.

You might also read Loewen's "Sundown Towns" which shows these attitudes not just persisting, but leading to ethnic cleansing across the US during the Nadir (circa 1870-1920). That includes New England: https://thenewpress.com/books/sundown-towns

There were of course excellent abolitionists and activists from New England, and there were pockets of goodness. But you can't paint New England as a magic exception.

0 comments

mistrial94y ago

ok, you got me. I am rethinking this a bit.. but, may I suggest changing "Northerners were quite racist" to be "Northerners were quite tribal" ? I think the survival of communities in those harsh days required more immediate survival interactions, and very importantly more cooperation in healthy child-rearing. Humans act in groups.

wpietriOP4y ago

It's a plausible question. But to show that you'd have to demonstrate that Northerners were not only less hostile to non-white people (especially Black and Native residents) than was common in America, but also equally hostile to their neighbors from other European countries. Given the high levels of immigration, the US definitely had intra-white hostility between different European ethnic and linguistic groups. But I have seen no evidence that was nearly as bad as anti-Black sentiment or action.

So I think "Northerners were quite racist" is a pretty reasonable statement from the historical evidence. Tribal too, as that's a common human characteristic. But when you look at things like America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver, it's pretty clear there's something more going on than garden-variety cooperative healthy child-rearing.

mistrial94y ago

> America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver

but there you go .. from a reasonable observation of very real tensions among certain people and groups, you then "mix" all of that into the worst, and call it American. It is at the least unfair to those that stayed true to teachings of real liberty for all people.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointswpietri4y ago0 comments

I believe you were told that. But I believe that's pretty ahistorical. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_S...

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-new-england-rhode-islan...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-black-people-a...

There were of course excellent abolitionists and activists from New England, and there were pockets of goodness. But you can't paint New England as a magic exception.

0 comments

mistrial94y ago

wpietriOP4y ago

mistrial94y ago

> America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse