Stockholm Synthrome

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?
Page 1 of 26
Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Politics => Vox Populi => Topic started by: michaelintp on August 23, 2010, 11:40:39
pm
Title: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Post by: michaelintp on August 23, 2010, 11:40:39 pm
From our recent discussions a strange thought occurred to me. Rather than burying
it in one of those other threads, I thought I would just raise it as an issue.
On the Dr. Laura thread we talked about how the "N-word" and similar words are
commonly used by African-Americans, or at least by some (entertainers,
performers, media, and so on, and also as a slur to describe other blacks that one
disagrees with). If you step back and think about it, this is very odd. I can't think
of another ethnic group that has so embraced the racist slurs directed against their
own group and has so actively re-disseminated them (internally, but in public
view). Sure, you see ethnic humor, and sometimes even ethnic self-deprecation, in
other groups, but not this ... or at least not to this degree. Why might this be more
pronounced among American blacks than in any other ethnic group? [If you
disagree with this assumption, I guess you can stop reading here].
On the Black Adversity thread (in Hudlin's Huddle) we talked about the possible
long-term effects of the institution of slavery on the black sub-culture. Putting this,
and the "N-word" discussion together, it occurred to me ...
The Stockholm Syndrome is the condition of a captive coming to identify with his or
her captors.
Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome if the following conditions are met:
* Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on
that threat
* The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context
of terror
* Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
* Perceived inability to escape.
I can think of no circumstance where these conditions more strongly existed than
in slavery. The institution of slavery existed for generations in the United States
(and the Colonies), until Emancipation. It is thus not an outlandish suggestion that
some widespread variation of the Stockholm Syndrome might have arisen during
those many generations of slavery and influenced sub-cultural attitudes, with some
residual cultural elements remaining to this day. This might explain why, in a
paradoxical sort of way, the most vicious self-disparaging racist slurs are actually
embraced and commonly used by members of that very community that was
victimized. On a contemporary intellectual level a person clearly rejects the racism,
to the point of being outraged if any outsider uses the "N-word" or any similar slur,
but yet ... it is almost normative to hear the use of this jargon within the
community itself, in its Media, in its entertainment, and so on.
I don't wish to offend anyone by raising this issue. Just struck me as an interesting
thought, worth throwing out there. Because if you think about it, it is very strange
http://hudlinentertainment.com/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=6622.0
8/9/2015
Page 2 of 26
that something so offensive would be so embraced and accepted within the group
(even while today viewing it as taboo if coming from a person outside the group).
I don't know if anyone has any thoughts, but ... feel free.
Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Post by: Wise Son on August 24, 2010, 04:03:29 pm
Well, I don't about calling it Stockholm Syndrome, but you're describing sounds
pretty similar to the well-recognised phenomenon of Black people viewing
'blackness' as a negative. I know people on here have talked about things like the
doll study where both Black and White children consistently rate Black dolls as
uglier than White ones, and there's been a lot of debate on the idea of 'reclaiming'
the word nigger, and plenty of us have said we feel that it's always going to be a
degrading word, and using it is always going to be expressing a degree of
inferiority.
So yeah, probably a decent bit of agreement with you on this.

Post by: Curtis Metcalf on August 25, 2010, 06:44:38 am
I take your point in noting a general similarity. Seems like there are at least a
couple of significant caveats to me:
1. The Stockholm Syndrome describes individuals in hostage situation. It is a
rather large jump to apply it to a large group of people.
2. The phrase "the black sub-culture" seems fraught with questionable
assumptions.
That said, it may have some descriptive usefulness as a model.
Regarding its applicability to the N-word, I pretty much agree with Wise Son. Even
though there was a rehabilitation of the word black in the 60s and 70s, I don't see
it for nigger. Furthermore, I don't quite follow your reasoning regarding the
Stockholm Syndrome and the N-word. Self-hate and self-esteem are central issues
for any oppressed group and the internal use of the N-word has always seemed to
be an expression or reaction to those issues. It's not clear to me that your
Stockholm Syndrome model adds anything to that or if it is another name for the
same phenomenon.
By the way, in case it's not clear, I don't mean to be critical in the sense of
belittling here. Just giving you my thoughts per your request. And hopefully raising
some interesting questions for you.

Post by: michaelintp on August 25, 2010, 08:30:57 am
Just throwing it out as an idea. While the idea of the Stockholm Syndrome was
originally applied to classic kidnapping situations, analogies have been drawn to
similar circumstances.
8/9/2015
Page 3 of 26
The original slaves, who were "imported" for a significant period of time, were
kidnapped. When they arrived in America, no effort was made to keep African tribal
communities together. They were to a significant extent stripped of many of their
cultural, linguistic and institutional anchors. Dominated by their captors. That's why
the concept hit me, that it might be applicable. And might have some residual
effects even to this day.
As to the rehabilitation of the "N-word" (a dumb-ass idea if I ever heard one) ...
are you saying that in the 1950's, and earlier, black Americans rarely use that
term? That its usage was the invention of 1960s activists?

Post by: Curtis Metcalf on August 25, 2010, 09:09:43 am
Quote from: michaelintp on August 25, 2010, 08:30:57 am
Just throwing it out as an idea. While the idea of the Stockholm Syndrome was originally applied to classic
kidnapping situations, analogies have been drawn to similar circumstances.
The original slaves, who were "imported" for a significant period of time, were kidnapped. When they arrived
in America, no effort was made to keep African tribal communities together. They were to a significant
extent stripped of many of their cultural, linguistic and institutional anchors. Dominated by their captors.
That's why the concept hit me, that it might be applicable. And might have some residual effects even to
this day.
I understand about throwing it out there as an idea. I think it has some usefulness.
That's what we engineers and scientists say about models. ;)
As to the rehabilitation of the "N-word" (a dumb-ass idea if I ever heard one) ... are you saying that in the
1950's, and earlier, black Americans rarely use that term? That its usage was the invention of 1960s
activists?
No. As far as I know, the attempt to rehabilitate the N-word, if that's what it is (my
nigga, etc.), is relatively recent, 1990s or so. I was speaking about the
rehabilitation of the word black. Before the 60s, black was taken as an insult. I
believe Negro or Colored were the preferred terms. I'm not saying the N-word
wasn't used by black people (Negroes) before then but I believe it was pretty much
exclusively derogatory.

Post by: Redjack on August 25, 2010, 11:48:57 am
The model doesn't work in any case. while Americans have been propagandized to
believe the African slaves and their descendants were docile and accepting of their
lot, in fact slave uprisings and escapes were a near-constant fact of life in the Old
South. That's why the penalties for such behavior or aiding such behavior became
so stiff and brutal so quickly. if they were rare and the slaves had been so docile,
they would have been treated like stray puppies when they stepped out of line
rather than as threats to the system.
Even that hypocritical bastard Tom Jefferson described the activity of slavery as
holding a wolf by the ears. Not holding a dog or a puppy or even a cow. A wolf.
These are not the actions of people who are coerced into embracing their captivity.
Stockholm Syndrome doesn't apply.
8/9/2015
Page 4 of 26

Post by: BPStorm4ever on August 25, 2010, 01:02:04 pm
Not only is Red Jack 100% correct, to try and say it is some form of stockholm
syndrome is just another blaming the victm argument in new clothes.

Post by: Battle on August 25, 2010, 02:22:20 pm
Quote from: Redjack on August 25, 2010, 11:48:57 am
Even that hypocritical bastard Tom Jefferson described the activity of slavery as holding a wolf by the ears.
Not holding a dog or a puppy or even a cow. A wolf.
Deep...
I've even heard slavery described as a "Genie in a bottle waiting to get out".

Post by: Catch22 on August 25, 2010, 05:49:24 pm
Quote from: Battle on August 25, 2010, 02:22:20 pm
Even that hypocritical bastard Tom Jefferson described the activity of slavery as holding a wolf by the
ears. Not holding a dog or a puppy or even a cow. A wolf.
Deep...
I've even heard slavery described as a "Genie in a bottle waiting to get out".
I'd probably liken it more to a powder keg waiting to explode. You have to think
that eventually a reckoning was going to some whether the Civil War happened or
not. Nat Turner's uprising may not have led to freedom, but there were others
watching and listening....I'd like to think that, anyway.

Post by: Redjack on August 25, 2010, 09:19:26 pm
"Sir, how pitiable is it to reflect, that although you were so fully convinced of the
benevolence of the Father of Mankind, and of his equal and impartial distribution of
these rights and privileges, which he hath conferred upon them, that you should at
the same time counteract his mercies, in detaining by fraud and violence so
numerous a part of my brethren, under groaning captivity and cruel oppression,
8/9/2015
Page 5 of 26
that you should at the same time be found guilty of that most criminal act, which
you professedly detested in others, with respect to yourselves." Benjamin
Banneker in a letter to Tom Jefferson
This was written by a black man to THE PRESIDENT in the 1700s.
Stockholm Syndrome, my ass.

Post by: BmoreAkuma on August 26, 2010, 06:37:24 am
Quote from: Curtis Metcalf on August 25, 2010, 09:09:43 am
No. As far as I know, the attempt to rehabilitate the N-word, if that's what it is (my nigga, etc.), is relatively
recent, 1990s or so. I was speaking about the rehabilitation of the word black. Before the 60s, black was
taken as an insult. I believe Negro or Colored were the preferred terms. I'm not saying the N-word wasn't
used by black people (Negroes) before then but I believe it was pretty much exclusively derogatory.
I guess that explains that birth certificates now state "black" instead of "colored".
There is a video out on youtube that takes a jab at it. It is called "Ninja, Say What"
In sum it is basically a number Asian or pacific islanders (I just don't know the
proper term I can't stand saying african american just as much) are calling each
other "ninja"

Post by: Battle on August 26, 2010, 06:55:58 am
Quote from: Catch22 on August 25, 2010, 05:49:24 pm
I'd probably liken it more to a powder keg waiting to explode. You have to think that eventually a reckoning
was going to some whether the Civil War happened or not. Nat Turner's uprising may not have led to
freedom, but there were others watching and listening....I'd like to think that, anyway.
You're absolutely right, Catch22!

The Civil War was on hold for 30+ years prior to its inevitable launch in the 1860s;
It's been held back because of political negotiations, deal-making and legislative
compromises. So, President Obama wasn't kidding when he said that when there
was a time for uncertainty for America, it was during that time. What's going on
now is nothing compared which is why of all American wars, the Civil War has
always fascinated me the most.

Quote from: Curtis Metcalf on August 25, 2010, 09:09:43 am
No. As far as I know, the attempt to rehabilitate the N-word, if that's what it is (my nigga, etc.), is relatively
recent, 1990s or so. I was speaking about the rehabilitation of the word black. Before the 60s, black was
taken as an insult. I believe Negro or Colored were the preferred terms. I'm not saying the N-word wasn't
used by black people (Negroes) before then but I believe it was pretty much exclusively derogatory.
Thanks for the clarification; when I read your post I read the word "black" as
"back" and that threw off my understanding. Need new bifocals, I guess.
8/9/2015
Page 6 of 26
So from the comments above, I see a kinda mixed reaction but mostly rejecting
the concept.
So, for those who do reject the notion that, in a pardoxical sort of way, there is a
certain wedding to the very thing you despise the most, in the use of vulgar
demeaning racist slurs and the like, what motivates such behavior? Because
honestly, I don't see it as pronounced in any other ethnic group. Generally
speaking, particularly in public, ethnic groups try to build themselves up; even in
private while there may be slurs they are usually not ethnic in nature (but rather
just personal insults and the like).
For example nowadays, when a person hears the word JAP, at least 5 times out of
10 they'll think of Jewish American Princess, not someone who is Japanese. That
phrase, used by Jews, is an example of the self-mockery of sorts that I described
above regarding a sub-segment of their group (usually said with some humor), but
I could never imagine Jews running around saying "What's happening Kike?!"
"How's it going Shylock?!"

The answer, the simple answer, is that you're making the mistake of likening our
experience to that of any other ethnic group in the US.
You can't. We are unique. Our experience in this nation has no analogue to that of
any ethnic group in any country in the world. There is no parallel between our
experience and that of immigrant jews, irish, japanese, etc. or even african or
caribbean immigrants. We are unique.
The closest would be that of the native north american population and, of course,
even that is not truly similar.
There is nothing to be learned from likening us to other groups. You have to look at
us.

Geoff, that's why it dawned on me the query about Stockholm Syndrome,
something that might be unique to a people held in slavery. What else, if that is
the wrong analogy, that would prompt people to engage in the kind of conduct I've
described, above?
As to your comment that slave uprisings were a constant fact of life in the Old
South ... were they really? Or was it the white fear of major slave uprisings that
were a constant fact of life? (Given the number of slaves vs. the number of whites,
and certainly the number of slave-owners, in the South). The two are very
different, of course.
I'm not being argumentative here, it is just that in my reading it was the fear of a
massive slave rebellion that was of constant concern to the slave-owning Southern
Establishment.
I mean, by analogy (though I know you reject analogies) during the Holocaust, you
8/9/2015
Page 7 of 26
had the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and a few others, and Jews fighting as partisans
("all the time"), but the vast majority of Jews did not put up massive resistance.
Not because of any character flaw, but because ... they couldn't, with most doing
as they were told, with some engaging in denial and in a number of other defense
mechanisms. And all that took place over a relatively short period of time, not
decade after decade after decade.
Inform me. Why do you say the slave uprisings were constant? Any sense of how
frequently they took place? The percentage of slaves who participated in such
uprisings? How widespread they were? Whether they were more prevalent in some
locations more than others, and if so why? Were they really so common and
widespread, or did the whites conflate them into more than they were? This is
interesting.

No, it's whites who have kept the information about the uprisings out of most
history books in order to further the notion that we were docile and, frankly, not so
bright.
In fact there were NUMEROUS slave rebellions, large and small, that occurred on a
fairly regular basis in the 17th (British Colony America), 18th and 19th centuries all
across the South. And, of course this is a big DUH. OF COURSE there were. 250
are easy to find. There were considerably more. But that 250 means , on average,
there was at least 1 slave uprising annually for the entire term of Slavery in the
US. That's minimum.
In addition, of course, there were numerous escapes and attempted escapes.
Simple digging will turn up most of this data. Extensive digging will turn up all of it.
The Southerners kept meticulous records of their livestock.
If you're ACTUALLY interested, then dig.
The WW2 Holocaust is not analogous by any stretch of the imagination. No
crossover whatsoever. When I say "unique" I mean it.

Well Geoff, rather than asking for someone to dig from scratch, why don't you
provide some leads as to information regarding the frequent uprisings? If you've
got the time.
Regarding the underlying question: What then is it that is unique that would lead a
people to the embrace of the very terminology used by those who disparaged that
people for generations? As I said at the outset, if we step back and not take for
granted what is, this is really strange. If you reject the "Stockholm Syndrome" (or
similar) hypothesis, what is your explanation?
What one would expect to see is a repudiation, not an absorption, of such
practices. Is it a "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt
me" sort of response, that I'll use the very words others tried to harm me with,
and show the world that those words don't hurt me at all? If that's the overt or
8/9/2015
Page 8 of 26
subliminal motivation, it is contradicted by the fact that the there still is (for good
reason) great sensitivity and outrage when an outsider uses the same terms or
even makes reference to the same terms. Which is why, I believe, the norm you
see in most other groups who were subjected to bigotry and hate is an
unambiguous repudiation of the use of such repulsive jargon, period.
I'm just trying to make sense out of this. Because it makes no sense to me
whatsoever.

Do a google search. Slave rebellion, uprising, usa. Try it at wiki.
Or some permutation of that. I'm terribly sorry that you don't have this data at
your fingertips but I stopped seeing myself as the ambassador of blackness a long
time ago. If you want the data, DIG. It's American history.
As for the your confusion.
We are the offspring of multiple peoples, stripped of culture and language by
whites for centuries. We had their faith beaten into us, we had their language and
culture beaten into us. The word for "black person" in this country, for centuries,
was Nigger.
When we got some power in the society it became easier and easier to physically
remind whites that it wasn't such a good idea to call us that anymore. there was
also a massive amount of linguistic inertia spilling over from all those centuries,
HABIT, for lack of a better word, that meant while many blacks were culturally
aware of the larger significance of the word, a very large number continued to use
it, interchangeably, with "human being." No, not all of us enjoy it. The tide away
from that word exists but it's slow.
We aren't Africans. We aren't African Americans. We are Negroes (Spanish for
"black" and, incidentally, the word mispronounced by whites into the word Nigger).
We are Black. We are unique. Distinct. That's all "nigger" means to most blacks
who use it. I'm oh so sorry that it is one of the very few words that whites don't
get to say freely and easily but, frankly, confusion over this indicates not much
thought has been given to the subject and not much in the way of empathy either.
When you point to these other groups who "suffered discrimination" you are
broadcasting a profound ignorance of the subject you seem hellbent on discussing.
"Discrimination?" Are you effing kidding me? Stockholm Syndrome? You'll forgive
me but this entire line of thought is insulting to me. Use your brain.
This is not hard.
You're not allowed to say it anymore; we're not quite done with it yet. And it's
none of your business how we choose to use or not use it. Your agreement and
understanding are not part of the equation for us and never will be. The point is it's
off limits to you.
8/9/2015
Page 9 of 26

Hahahaha, Redjack, I have no interest in using the N-word, and indeed I find the
term offensive because of its racist history. For the same reason I don't use other
racial or ethnic slurs either, be they applied to blacks or any other group of people.
Sorry, Geoff, it may come as a surprise to you, but the N-word is not the only
ethnic slur that is off limits in this world. Nor should it be the only one.
I would also add that, far from not being "done" with it, a lotta folk in the black
Media and Entertainment Industries continue to actively promote it. I was just
trying to figure out why.
I do see your point that because of common historical usage it has, for some,
developed the mere meaning as "person" and nothing more than that, despite its
history of use as a racial slur. I take that to be your substantive explanation. Also
that the "stripped of language and culture" aspect is why such words were
borrowed and continue in usage to this day. I don't see the value in doing so,
but ... that's another issue.

Quote
I would also add that, far from not being "done" with it, a lotta folk in the black Media and Entertainment
Industries continue to actively promote it. I was just trying to figure out why. ---michaelintp
Strange.
He keeps asking the same question over and over as if...? ??? ?

Hahahaha, Redjack, I have no interest in using the N-word, and indeed I find the term offensive because of
its racist history. For the same reason I don't use other racial or ethnic slurs either, be they applied to
blacks or any other group of people. Sorry, Geoff, it may come as a surprise to you, but the N-word is not
the only ethnic slur that is off limits in this world. Nor should it be the only one.
Nope, it's not and I don't care about the others. I'm not in the business of
offending people that way. I tend to lean on personal insults rather than collective
ethnic or gender ones because it's the person that's pissing me off, not the group.
The difference here is that, amongst ourselves, just as some gay people can refer
to other gays as fags or dykes with affection, that word has nuances based on
collective history and shared experience. Woe betide the straight person who does
so and with good reason. If you're not one of "us" you don't get to share. It's not
complex so I wonder why you're making it so.
Quote
I would also add that, far from not being "done" with it, a lotta folk in the black Media and Entertainment
Industries continue to actively promote it. I was just trying to figure out why.
8/9/2015
Page 10 of 26
Bullsh*t. No one is "promoting" the use of nigger as a way of addressing anyone.

Quote
I do see your point that because of common historical usage it has, for some, developed the mere meaning
as "person" and nothing more than that, despite its history of use as a racial slur. I take that to be your
substantive explanation. Also that the "stripped of language and culture" aspect is why such words were
borrowed and continue in usage to this day. I don't see the value in doing so, but ... that's another issue.
No, it's not an issue. It's none of your business, ultimately. All you need to know is
1) Don't call black people niggers unless you're looking for trouble. 2) Your
understanding of the "issue" is not required or requested.
There can be no meeting of the minds on this. If you're not black, you can't meet.
End of story.

Post by: Wise Son on August 27, 2010, 09:31:57 am
I kinda feel like Geoff's last response leads my thoughts onto something my Mum
once said to me. I offer her perspective as a White person who has spent almost all
of her life around Black people, and is married to one, with 2 mixed-race kids. If I
paraphrase her,
"It does make me sad that, no matter how much I love your Dad and you and your
sister, no matter how much I sympathise and empathise with you, that I know I
will never actually understand what it's like to live as a Black person in this
country. It's just so far from my experience, no matter how close I get to it."

It's a wall that can't be scaled. Some people would rather not accept that but it's a
fact.

Post by: BmoreAkuma on August 27, 2010, 01:30:51 pm
I just think that it is something that we should leave alone and don't bother in the
why. It hasn't even been 100 years since the civil rights movement. All of us we'll
long gone and dead by the time everything "balances out" regarding the time of
slavery, separate but equal.

In the interest of historical accuracy, here is some material on Slave Rebellions in
the Old South. It suggests that my original understanding of the scope and
magnitude of slave rebellions was not out of line. Which brings back into play
some of the matters we were discussing earlier on this thread, including the
comments on the first page by Curtis and Wise Son.
8/9/2015
Page 11 of 26
Contrary to Redjacks contention, Encyclopedia Britannica states:

Slave rebellions in North America were also noticeably few and involved only a
handful of participants: the New York revolt of 1712, the Stono rebellion of South
Carolina (1739), the Gabriel plot in Richmond, Va. (1800), the Denmark Vesey
conspiracy in Charleston, S.C. (1822), and Nat Turner's uprising in Jerusalem, Va.
(1831), are the best known. Southern slave uprisings were so few and so small
because of the absolute certainty that they would be brutally repressed. The Turner
rebellion is usually given as the reason for the marked increase in the severity of
the slave regime after 1831.
The article further states:
Perhaps the most common individual response to enslavement was sluggishness,
passivity, and indifference. A nearly universal stereotype of the slave was of a
lying, lazy, dull brute who had to be kicked or whipped. There probably were three
mutually reinforcing factors at work: an unconscious response to overcontrol and
absence of freedom, a conscious effort to sabotage the master's desires, and a
conditioned response to the expectation of stereotypical behaviour.
Wikipedia:
On the other hand, the anonymous Wikipedia author attempts to inflate the
magnitude of slave rebellions in the Old South. He uses language artfully, by
combining uprisings that a few people planned, but never took place, with a
prominent one that did, Nat Turners Rebellion. Also, in referencing 250 uprisings
or attempted uprisings (i.e. non-uprisings), the author clearly sought to maximize
the number by counting any altercation (actual or planned but not realized) that
involved 10 or more individuals. No doubt he would have come up with an even
higher number had he used as his criteria 2 or more individuals - but I imagine
he felt that would be pushing it.
Assuming an average of two million slaves (see slave population growth data
below), even if we assume that a total 5000 people actively participated in slave
rebellions (probably a gross over-estimate), that would reflect .0025 of the slave
population - an insignificant fraction. Even if you disagree with these numbers and
wish to double or quadruple the number who rebelled, and halve the number of
slaves for purpose of the computation, you will still arrive at a trivial fraction of the
total slave population. It is also noteworthy that some of the slave uprisings
listed in the Wikipedia article did not take place because other slaves informed on
the conspirators before they could bring their plans to fruition.
What seems more likely, based on the sources cited below, is that there were
several instances of individual slaves or small groups of slaves engaging in
(justified) violence against their masters or overseers. These instances, as well as
word of planned rebellions that never took place, and the few that did occur
involving a relatively small number of persons, escalated white fear that a massive
rebellion was possible.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/print?
articleId=109538&fullArticle=true&tocId=24175
Slave demography
[In] North America slaves began to procreate in significant numbers in the mid-
8/9/2015
Page 12 of 26
18th century. This fact helped the slave owners survive the cutting off of imports in
1808. Between the censuses of 1790 and 1860 the slave population of the
South expanded enormouslyfrom 657,327 to 3,838,765one of the fastest
rates of population growth ever recorded prior to the advent of modern medicine.
Paradoxically, although the Southern slave regime was one of the most
dehumanizing ever recorded, it was one of the most favourable on record
demographically, because the nutritional and general living environments were
highly conducive to explosive population growth. Without significant imports the
Southern slave population increased fourfold between the early 1800s and 1860.
Slave Protest
Throughout history human beings have objected to being enslaved and have
responded in myriad ways ranging from individual shirking, alcoholism, flight, and
suicide to arson, murdering owners, and mass rebellion. Perhaps the most
common individual response to enslavement was sluggishness, passivity,
and indifference. A nearly universal stereotype of the slave was of a lying,
lazy, dull brute who had to be kicked or whipped. There probably were
three mutually reinforcing factors at work: an unconscious response to
overcontrol and absence of freedom, a conscious effort to sabotage the
master's desires, and a conditioned response to the expectation of
stereotypical behaviour. Some owners tried to overcome such behaviour by a
system of incentives or by strict regimentation, such as the gang system, but
historically they were in a minority. Less frequent was suicide. A number of slaves
are known to have jumped overboard during the Middle Passage because they
feared that the transatlantic voyage was taking them to be eaten by witches or
barbarians, a fate that seemed worse than drowning.
Flight, either individually or in groups, was one of the most visible forms of protest
against enslavement. The rates of flight, which varied greatly from society to
society throughout history, usually depended less on individual slave-owner
conduct than on the likelihood of success. Immediate conditions, such as the
brutality of an overseer or master or a temporary lapse of supervision, often
precipitated slave flight, but willingness to undertake such a form of rebellion
against the system was usually determined by such factors as the accessibility of
refuge or the ability to blend in with the free population (some societies marked
slaves to inhibit such blending). Slave flight was infrequent in societies such as the
peacetime American South or in West Africa, where a refuge of freedom was very
distant. In East Africa, where flight was curtailed by slave owners united in their
desire to prevent it in spite of a high demand for labour, runaways joined
neighbouring communities and then raided their former masters. For more than
two centuries fugitive slaves in Brazil known as maroons set up independent
polities, or quilombos, that lasted for years. Maroon communities were found in
many other places in Latin America and the Caribbean as well. In Muscovy, where
most of the slaves were natives or of similar origin (Poles and Swedes), where
there was an open frontier, and where masters had no compunction about taking in
other owners' slaves, the rate of flight was very high; and as many as a quarter to
a third of the slaves ran away. In China flight by male slaves was also common.
During the American Revolution, when the slave owners were occupied with
fighting the British, fugitive slaves numbered in the tens of thousands.
Direct, personal attacks on slave owners often were determined by the nature of
the slave regime. Where owners believed they enjoyed automatic sexual access to
female slaves, both the women and their husbands were prone to respond by
assaulting the owners or their agents. In Hausaland, killings by concubines instilled
great fear in slave owners. Where slaves were driven, assault on the drivers was
8/9/2015
Page 13 of 26
not an uncommon response. As a result, overseers in the Mississippi Valley feared

for their lives and constantly carried arms.
The most dramatic form of slave protest was outright rebellion. Slave uprisings
varied enormously in frequency, size, intensity, and duration. Perhaps the calmest
of all known slave societies were those of West Africa, where the predominance of
women and children caused rebellions to be very few. Slave rebellions in North
America were also noticeably few and involved only a handful of
participants: the New York revolt of 1712, the Stono rebellion of South
Carolina (1739), the Gabriel plot in Richmond, Va. (1800), the Denmark
Vesey conspiracy in Charleston, S.C. (1822), and Nat Turner's uprising in
Jerusalem, Va. (1831), are the best known. Southern slave uprisings were
so few and so small because of the absolute certainty that they would be
brutally repressed. The Turner rebellion is usually given as the reason for
the marked increase in the severity of the slave regime after 1831.
Other slave revolts were on a much grander scale than those of West Africa and
North America. One of the most famous slave uprisings was the Gladiatorial War
led by Spartacus against Rome in 7371 BC. The Spartacus rebellion was brutally
repressed (the roads leading into Rome were lined with gibbets from which rebel
corpses hung). Slaves led the Khlopko and Bolotnikov uprisings in Muscovy in 1603
and 1606, respectively, a time of dynastic crisis. Another great slave rebellion was
that of the Zanj (black slaves imported from Zanzibar) in Iraq and Khuzistan in the
years 869883. It was joined by fair-skinned slaves as well and was on a larger
scale than the Spartacus revolt. Slave rebellion in China at the end of the 17th and
the beginning of the 18th century was so extensive that owners eventually
eschewed male slaves and converted the institution into a female-dominated one.
Slave rebellions occurred in every slave society in the Americas from the 16th
century onward. Prominent slave revolts occurred in Jamaica in 1760, 1798, and
183132, in Barbados in 1816, and in British Guiana in 1823. Perhaps the most
famous Caribbean rebellion, in Saint-Domingue, began in 1791 and was
subsequently led to victory by the freedman Toussaint-Louverture; it produced the
emancipation of its slaves while the French were preoccupied with their own
revolution and ultimately led to the independent state of Haiti.
From Wikipedia [a less reliable source]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellions#North_America
Numerous black slave rebellions and insurrections took place in North America
during the 17th and 18th centuries. There is documentary evidence of more than
250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving ten or more slaves. Three of the
best known in the United States are the revolts by Gabriel Prosser in Virginia in
1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner in
Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831.
Slave resistance in the antebellum South did not gain the attention of academic
historians until the 1940s when historian Herbert Aptheker started publishing the
first serious scholarly work on the subject. Aptheker stressed how the rebellion was
rooted in the exploitative conditions of the Southern slave system. He traversed
libraries and archives throughout the South, managing to uncover roughly 250
similar instances.
The 1811 German Coast Uprising, which took place outside of New Orleans in
1811, involved up to 125 slaves. It was suppressed by volunteer militias and a
detachment of the United States Army, and the heads of over sixty slaves were
8/9/2015
Page 14 of 26
put on pikes along the levee.

Turner's 1831 rebellion considered by some to be the largest slave revolt in U.S.
history, involving up to 75 slaves, led to a new wave of oppressive legislation
prohibiting the movement, assembly, and education of slaves.
John Brown had already fought against pro-slavery forces in Kansas for several
years when he decided to lead a raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia (West Virginia was
not yet a state). This raid was a joint attack by former slaves, freed blacks, and
white men who had corresponded with slaves on plantations in order to form a
general uprising amongst slaves. It almost succeeded, had it not been for Brown's
delay, and hundreds of slaves left their plantations to join Brown's force - and
others left their plantations to join Brown in an escape to the mountains.
Eventually, due to a tactical error by Brown, their force was quelled. But directly
following this, slave disobedience and runaways sky-rocketed in Virginia.
Historian, Stephen Hahn, proposes that the self-organized involvement of slaves in
the Union Army during the Civil War composed a slave rebellion that dwarfed all
others.
The Wikipedia description above appears to overstate the magnitude of the
rebellions by listing rebellions that, while planned by a few individuals, never
actually took place. In other Wikepedia articles linked to the above, we discover:
Gabriel's Rebellion
Gabriel [Prosser] planned the revolt during the spring and summer of 1800. On
August 30, 1800, Gabriel hoped to lead the slaves into Richmond, but revolution
was postponed because of rain. The slaves' owners had suspicion of the uprising.
Before it could be carried out, two slaves told their owner Mosby Sheppard about
the plans. He in turn warned Virginia's Governor James Monroe, who called out the
state militia. Gabriel escaped downriver to Norfolk, but there he was spotted and
betrayed by another slave for the reward. That slave did not receive the full
reward.
Gabriel was returned to Richmond for questioning, but he did not submit. Gabriel,
his two brothers, and 23 other slaves were hanged.
The Vesey conspiracy
Inspired by the revolutionary spirit and actions of slaves during the 1791 Haitian
Revolution, and furious at the closing of the African Church, [Denmark] Vesey
began to plan a slave rebellion. His insurrection, which was to take place on
Bastille Day, July 14, 1822, became known to thousands of blacks throughout
Charleston and along the Carolina coast. The plot called for Vesey and his group of
slaves and free blacks to slay their owners and temporarily seize the city of
Charleston. Vesey and his followers planned to sail to Haiti to escape retaliation.
Two slaves opposed to Vesey's scheme leaked the plot. Charleston authorities
charged 131 men with conspiracy. In total, 67 men were convicted and 35 hanged,
including Denmark Vesey.

keep digging.
8/9/2015
Page 15 of 26
Or don't. I suspect you had your conclusion drawn when you started.
Just for kicks, look up the Black Seminole revolt. Strangely omitted from the lofty
BRITANNICA and yet a fairly big chunk of American history. Shock.
Seriously. You're in the shallow end of this thing. Just because I'm not doing the
work for you doesn't mean I'm making things up.
If you mean to seriously explore these issues rather than ask inflammatory and
often insensitive "anthropological" questions, get off your intellectual ass and DIG.

Never mind. I'm sick of this conversation.
I won't be having it again. Life's too effing short.
vaya con dios.

Never mind. I'm sick of this conversation.
I won't be having it again. Life's too effing short.
vaya con dios.
Good idea 'cause that $#@!-ing troll is just acting out in his usual manner...
---being nosey.
He may not want me to post some of the salacious sh!t and attempt to embarass
about his ethnic/religious whatever group is notorious for on the street level
without getting into some long drawn-out troll fest so instead I'll just put him on
perma-ignore like some of the other HEF troops.
@%#$-ing cheap ass* legal aid lawyer.
8/9/2015
*in
Page 16 of 26
quality

I believe I've been involved with this forum long enough that nobody should view
me as a "troll" even though we may disagree or come from different perspectives.
Guys, in light of some of our other discussions this idea just hit me, and I shared it
to see what people thought. Nothing more to it than that. Neither Wise Son nor
Curtis responded in a petulant fashion, because, I believe, they understood that I
was just throwing out an idea. I have no vested interest in the answer, one way or
the other. We are not talking about something that I've had some longstanding
belief in, or firm conviction regarding.
Frankly, Redjack's explanation with regard to the use of derogatory slurs in
everyday conversation (without the intent of being derogatory in that context)
makes some sense, though this does not change the fact that it is unusual. I'm not
sure if everyone here agrees with him. But I don't know; there may be more to it.
Maybe not, however. I believe the responses of Curtis and Wise Son at the outset
of this thread reflected serious attempts to address a complex and subtle issue
regarding the effect of the past on the present.
In our discussion of racial issues on the forum, I've noted the view of many that it
is important to look to the past to explain the present. It was in that context that
the thought occurred to me that some of the horrific experiences people suffered
during slavery might have had a "cultural" effect (and later Jim Crow, though
slavery was the most hellish experience of all) ... though my instinctive reaction
has always been to dismiss that line of argument because slavery took place so
long ago. My second concern regarding that line of thinking is that it can lead to
stereotyped thinking with regard to other individuals, which goes against
everything I believe in. But on the other hand, perhaps culture does have a life of
its own that can continue for generations, affecting even those persons who did not
experience some of the most dramatic events that forged that culture. So I really
don't know. These comments are not limited to "black culture" but apply to all
cultures and sub-cultures.
As to Redjack's claim that there were frequent significant slave rebellions (at least
that is how I understood his comment), his claim interested me. As I noted, I had
not heard of this before, though I had heard of slave owner fears of a potential
massive slave revolt. I have no vested interest in the answer to this historical
question. If what Redjack said were true, my reaction would be, "Wow, that's very
interesting." What he said did interest me, and that's why I looked into it.
I first pulled the Wikipedia site, and in general terms it seemed to confirm what he
was saying. However, one thing that struck me as odd is that the "250" count of
"uprisings" included any altercation involving 10 or more slaves (which is not what
one normally thinks of as a "rebellion"). But I was interested, so I clicked some of
the connecting links, and what I discovered was that some of the events that have
been referred to as uprisings were in fact non-rebellions because other slaves
informed on the planners before anything got off the ground and the "conspirators"
were caught and executed. One of the links in Wikipedia was the Encyclopedia
Britannica material, which I looked at, and which I quoted in full above.
Interestingly, it flatly contradicts the Wikipedia site (and Redjack's assertions).
8/9/2015
Page 17 of 26
Unlike Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica utilizes a professional staff that is held

accountable.
The reason that Redjack's assertions struck me as interesting and surprising is that
what he described is NOT the way most powerless victims respond under
circumstances of intense and brutal oppression by those who are dominating them.
His insistence that one can't draw parallels to the experiences of any other human
beings or groups throughout human history further struck me as bizarre. Of course
one can find insight from the experiences of other groups, to draw comparisons
and to find contrasts. Because, fundamentally, people are people.
Usually under the horrific circumstances that slavery represented, or in other
hellish circumstances (yes, like the Holocaust) where the victims are essentially
powerless, the overwhelming reaction of the vast majority of the people is NOT to
rebel, but rather to comply. Because the price of noncompliance was unimaginable
(potential torture or death). People also engage in denial or wishful thinking or
hoping for the best or just trying to survive as best they can or even developing
something like the Stockholm Syndrome (even when, as in the Holocaust, their
fate was in fact sealed). It is not a "put down" of the Jews of Europe that most of
them complied with the orders given them, upon threat of torture and death
(directed at themselves and their loved ones). In hindsight some are mystified why
more massive rebellions didn't take place during the Holocaust. Those questions
are foolish, fueled more by the romantic drama of action movies than reality. In
the Holocaust, the major uprising that did take place, in Warsaw, was initiated by
men and women who knew they were already dead. They concluded that if they
were going to die, they were going to take down as many Nazis as possible with
them. Some may have hoped against hope that somehow they could escape their
eventual fate. Also during the War, others did fight as partisans (like my wife's
uncle, who was killed as a teenager), while others escaped and hid in the forests
(like my wife's step-grandfather), or hid with families (like my wife's mother). But
the vast majority did none of these things.
Of course you can draw parallels.
It is not a put down of American slaves to conclude (if true, as from Encyclopedia
Britannica appears to be the case) that the vast majority of slaves, not only women
and children but adult males, did not engage in any form of active rebellion
whatsoever. That some, a very small minority did, is also not surprising. Again,
one can point to the partisans during the Holocaust.
Of course today, looking back, some folks might find it to be emotionally more
gratifying to read of the stories of disobedience and rebellion, small and larger, in
the same way that Jews reading Holocaust history find more emotional satisfaction
in reading about the partisans and heroic Warsaw Ghetto fighters than about the
millions who lined up to be transported to concentration camps (described as work
camps), who lined up to be gassed, who lined up to be machined gunned and
pushed into pits. However, what we personally find to be most emotionally
satisfying to focus on has no bearing on historical reality. Or on the psychological
reality of how most people, most people of all races and ethnicities, respond to
circumstances that we, in reality, can't imagine being in. The vast majority of
people in such circumstances do not respond as heroic fighting action heroes. Most
respond in different ways, as described by Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not a put
down to conclude that real-world human beings respond ... as real human beings.
How anyone can interpret anything I've written on this thread as a put down is
8/9/2015
Page 18 of 26
beyond me. Either you believe that the past history of slavery had an impact that
still resonates into the present, or you do not believe that. If you do believe that,
the first step is to understand what that history was for the vast majority of
individuals affected. The next step, if you do believe that, is to then address the
question ... in what ways does it still resonate.
The claim that this topic is taboo, is, well, unwarranted. On the other hand, I've
little emotional investment in this topic, tending to operate more in analytic
machine mode. It some of you, like Geoff, find it too "close to home" to discuss,
too upsetting too discuss with anyone who is not black, or who does not already
embrace everything you think and feel with uncritical acceptance, well, I can
understand and respect that too. For totally legitimate reasons this is a far more
emotional issue for many of you than it is for me. One that some of you would
rather not discuss. In that case, I guess we can just move on. Again, my intention
was not to upset of offend anyone.

It's not too close to home. I never said that. It's the last in a long series of straws.
I've been extremely tolerant and accommodating of you over the years, always
trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I've had it. I don't care if your
motivations are "pure" or not. I'm sick of it.
I think your constant going over this stuff like it's a god damn sociology class
project is offensive. You think this stuff is just like cataloguing all the contradictory
origin stories of the Vision or a reason to have some academic debate where
people win or lose on points. Offensive. And corrosive.
Your Holocaust analogy isn't analogous, it's specious. Your Spartacus analogy isn't
analogous. They have, literally, nothing in common with our past situation. That
you don't see that is a large indication of your complete inability to process the
necessary data to answer your questions.
While you may think it's "unusual" for enslaved peoples to rebel, in fact, it's
common. Indeed, EVERYWHERE empires have put down their boots, groups of the
enslaved have fought back, from DAY ONE.
Haiti. Cuba. Jamaica. Congo. Senegal. Brazil. etc, etc, et bloody cetera. The history
of African slavery, in particular, is one of many of the Africans fighting back against
it. Fighting and mostly losing, yes, but fighting. I'm sorry that doesn't line up with
your bullsh*t Stockholm Syndrome theory but those are the facts. Learn them. Go
out into the wide world of data and FIND the facts. Or stop pretending that you
have more than a video gamer's level of interest in this subject.
Humans don't enjoy the yoke. We're not built for it. Most can be tortured into
submission but a SIGNIFICANT number of us, won't have it. That's ALL humans,
regardless of skin color or gender.
Sadly, the people who end up writing the books about those rebellions usually have
a vested interest in NOT counting them up properly. No one has asserted that the
majority of slaves were in a state of rebellion so bringing that up is a straw man.
What I said was, from the onset of the institution, there was a minimum average of
one rebellion a year for centuries.
8/9/2015
Page 19 of 26
I don't make "claims." I make declarative statements that are supported by facts.
But I don't have justify anything or even PRESENT anything to you, Michael. If
your'e so effin interested, then look into this DEEPLY. Your pathetic citation of
BRITANNICA and Wiki shows the tiny extent to which you are truly willing to
commit to your "interest."
On a personal note: Stop talking about me. Don't paraphrase me. Don't bring up
my name or positions anymore. I am out of this conversation with you. Or any
others. I've had it. Feel free to do whatever else you want but leave me out of it.
Completely. I'm done. And don't pm me either. I'm serious as a heart attack about
this.

Geoff, regarding my post above, the Spartacus example is not "my" example. I
thought that was clear. Everything cited in my "encyclopedia" post above, under
the words "From Encyclopedia Britannica" are not my words, they are the words of
the encyclopedia historians, who unlike Wikipedia "contributors" are held
accountable. I thought it would be helpful to quote the "slave protest" section of
the encyclopedia entry in full, precisely so that nobody would think I was taking
quotes out of context or in any other way "spinning" something. The bolding is
mine, but the words are from the encyclopedia. I just bolded what I thought was
most relevant to the discussion. So too with the Wikipedia material, after the words
"from Wikipedia" I simply quoted the entry verbatim; there all I did was add the
italicized words introducing the two other Wikipedia entries that describe Gabriel's
Rebellion and the Vesey conspiracy (that did not in fact result in uprisings, because
other slaves turned them in). None of the words are mine.
Your comments suggest to me that you might consider writing a letter to the
editors of Encyclopedia Britannica if you truly believe their historical summary
reflects an inability to process the necessary historical data. I would imagine that
the encyclopedia's historians are familiar with that data.
As to your not contributing further to this, or any other discussion, that's up to
you. I would not think to PM you. Doing so would clearly be pointless. But please,
don't have a heart attack over this. (I've never heard the expression, "I'm serious
as a heart attack" ...). Life is too short as it is.

Michael. Do not address me directly or indirectly anymore. I thought I was clear
about that. There is no further conversation between you and me, of any sort. We
are done. I can't say it any more clearly. Keep your advice to yourself; it's cloying
at best.

That pledge was short-lived. :P
8/9/2015
Page 20 of 26
The characterization of the Spartacus example as "my" example was at best a

misunderstanding of fact and perhaps even a misrepresentation of fact, as it was in
fact Encyclopedia Britannica's example, not mine. It is perfectly fair for me to
clarify misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations of fact that mischaracterize
what I have posted.
The encyclopedia does compare and contrast experiences of slavery suffered by
many peoples throughout history in different locations and under different
circumstances (for example, different gender mixes, as it appears that slave
populations that are predominantly male are more likely to revolt, as they don't
need to be concerned about possible retaliation against their women and children).
Drawing parallels to and identifying differences in other historical experiences is
perfectly appropriate when discussing American slavery.

For the last time. Do not address me. If you keep it up, you're a troll.
f*ck off, Michael. Does that make the point for you? Be a man and respect my
wishes. Leave me alone.

Then PLEASE STOP responding, and I promise I will NEVER EVER address you
AGAIN. I assume that is CLEAR. There is no need for you to respond.

Troll.
Done.

Does anyone else wish to discuss this topic of American slavery, whether it has any
lingering effect, or not, and if you believe it does, what that effect might be?
Honestly, I do believe this to be an interesting and possibly important topic. First, if
you don't accept the notion that there really is any lingering effect, that is
important to know. I sympathize with that view, particularly as to the "cultural"
point, but I'm not sure it is accurate. As I said before, I just don't know. On the
other hand, if you do believe that even today some impact lingers, what do you
believe it to be? Solely economic? Some residual cultural impact? What?
???
If nobody is interested in discussing the topic, that's fine too.
8/9/2015
Page 21 of 26

Quote from: michaelintp on August 28, 2010, 11:43:13 pm
I believe I've been involved with this forum long enough that nobody should view me as a "troll" even
though we may disagree or come from different perspectives.
Oh I disagree. I've ALWAYS seen you as a troll, and for that reason have avoided
directly talking to you until now. You've just never been as overt as you've been
with this THIS thread. The closest you came was scrambling to defend Dr. Laura,
so I guess this should have been an obvious segue.
ALL of your posts that I have seen, including this one, appears to be designed to
show us the error of our (black people) ways, as if you're some missionary trying
to save us savages from ourselves. You're not interested in discussion, you never
have been, only in telling. When that backfires, like it normally does, it culminates
with the usual exasperation "Don't you see???" or some form thereof.
Quote
Guys, in light of some of our other discussions this idea just hit me, and I shared it to see what people
thought. Nothing more to it than that. Neither Wise Son nor Curtis responded in a petulant fashion,
because, I believe, they understood that I was just throwing out an idea.
What does that mean? That they're good negroes by not being petulant? ???
Quote
Frankly, Redjack's explanation with regard to the use of derogatory slurs in everyday conversation (without
the intent of being derogatory in that context) makes some sense, though this does not change the fact that
it is unusual. I'm not sure if everyone here agrees with him. But I don't know; there may be more to it.
Maybe not, however. I believe the responses of Curtis and Wise Son at the outset of this thread reflected
serious attempts to address a complex and subtle issue regarding the effect of the past on the present.
"Serious attempts", huh? Yet your mind remains unchanged, and you refuse to
accept that this is something that you cannot grasp and perhaps never will. No one
is promoting the use of the n-word. And that still doesn't change the fact Dr. Laura
was WRONG for using it. Period. No one's opinion matters but your own, that's why
threads like this are ultimately a waste of time. You don't want to learn, you want
to teach, but how can you teach us about ourselves? I think we know better in that
regard that you.
Quote
In our discussion of racial issues on the forum, I've noted the view of many that it is important to look to
the past to explain the present. It was in that context that the thought occurred to me that some of the
horrific experiences people suffered during slavery might have had a "cultural" effect (and later Jim Crow,
though slavery was the most hellish experience of all) ... though my instinctive reaction has always been to
dismiss that line of argument because slavery took place so long ago. My second concern regarding that line
of thinking is that it can lead to stereotyped thinking with regard to other individuals, which goes against
everything I believe in. But on the other hand, perhaps culture does have a life of its own that can continue
for generations, affecting even those persons who did not experience some of the most dramatic events that
forged that culture. So I really don't know. These comments are not limited to "black culture" but apply to
all cultures and sub-cultures.
The irony of this is I have noticed that stockholm syndrome as you have been
describing it seems prevalent in the LATINO community. Unlike you, though, I
would gladly hear and accept arguments that prove me wrong, because that is a
nihilist way of looking at things. I actually want to learn, and do not consider
myself a self-appointed authority on the matter that only allows an act of congress
8/9/2015
Page 22 of 26
to get me to change my way of thinking.

Quote
As to Redjack's claim that there were frequent significant slave rebellions (at least that is how I understood
his comment), his claim interested me. As I noted, I had not heard of this before, though I had heard of
slave owner fears of a potential massive slave revolt. I have no vested interest in the answer to this
historical question. If what Redjack said were true, my reaction would be, "Wow, that's very interesting."
What he said did interest me, and that's why I looked into it.
I first pulled the Wikipedia site, and in general terms it seemed to confirm what he was saying. However,
one thing that struck me as odd is that the "250" count of "uprisings" included any altercation involving 10
or more slaves (which is not what one normally thinks of as a "rebellion"). But I was interested, so I clicked
some of the connecting links, and what I discovered was that some of the events that have been referred to
as uprisings were in fact non-rebellions because other slaves informed on the planners before anything got
off the ground and the "conspirators" were caught and executed. One of the links in Wikipedia was the
Encyclopedia Britannica material, which I looked at, and which I quoted in full above. Interestingly, it flatly
contradicts the Wikipedia site (and Redjack's assertions). Unlike Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica utilizes a
professional staff that is held accountable.
The reason that Redjack's assertions struck me as interesting and surprising is that what he described is
NOT the way most powerless victims respond under circumstances of intense and brutal oppression by those
who are dominating them. His insistence that one can't draw parallels to the experiences of any other
human beings or groups throughout human history further struck me as bizarre. Of course one can find
insight from the experiences of other groups, to draw comparisons and to find contrasts. Because,
fundamentally, people are people.
Usually under the horrific circumstances that slavery represented, or in other hellish circumstances (yes, like
the Holocaust) where the victims are essentially powerless, the overwhelming reaction of the vast majority
of the people is NOT to rebel, but rather to comply. Because the price of noncompliance was unimaginable
(potential torture or death). People also engage in denial or wishful thinking or hoping for the best or just
trying to survive as best they can or even developing something like the Stockholm Syndrome (even when,
as in the Holocaust, their fate was in fact sealed). It is not a "put down" of the Jews of Europe that most of
them complied with the orders given them, upon threat of torture and death (directed at themselves and
their loved ones). In hindsight some are mystified why more massive rebellions didn't take place during the
Holocaust. Those questions are foolish, fueled more by the romantic drama of action movies than reality. In
the Holocaust, the major uprising that did take place, in Warsaw, was initiated by men and women who
knew they were already dead. They concluded that if they were going to die, they were going to take down
as many Nazis as possible with them. Some may have hoped against hope that somehow they could escape
their eventual fate. Also during the War, others did fight as partisans (like my wife's uncle, who was killed as
a teenager), while others escaped and hid in the forests (like my wife's step-grandfather), or hid with
families (like my wife's mother). But the vast majority did none of these things.
Of course you can draw parallels.
It is not a put down of American slaves to conclude (if true, as from Encyclopedia Britannica appears to be
the case) that the vast majority of slaves, not only women and children but adult males, did not engage in
any form of active rebellion whatsoever. That some, a very small minority did, is also not surprising. Again,
one can point to the partisans during the Holocaust.
Of course today, looking back, some folks might find it to be emotionally more gratifying to read of the
stories of disobedience and rebellion, small and larger, in the same way that Jews reading Holocaust history
find more emotional satisfaction in reading about the partisans and heroic Warsaw Ghetto fighters than
about the millions who lined up to be transported to concentration camps (described as work camps), who
lined up to be gassed, who lined up to be machined gunned and pushed into pits. However, what we
personally find to be most emotionally satisfying to focus on has no bearing on historical reality. Or on the
psychological reality of how most people, most people of all races and ethnicities, respond to circumstances
that we, in reality, can't imagine being in. The vast majority of people in such circumstances do not respond
as heroic fighting action heroes. Most respond in different ways, as described by Encyclopedia Britannica. It
is not a put down to conclude that real-world human beings respond ... as real human beings.
How anyone can interpret anything I've written on this thread as a put down is beyond me. Either you
believe that the past history of slavery had an impact that still resonates into the present, or you do not
believe that. If you do believe that, the first step is to understand what that history was for the vast
majority of individuals affected. The next step, if you do believe that, is to then address the question ... in
what ways does it still resonate.
I think you try and hide your true intent with long diatribes, or rather screeds, like
this. Wiki and Encyclopedia Britanica are not the end all be all of information on
history. And YOU KNOW THIS. Wiki should only be used as a starting point,
because while the site is moderated, the fact still remains anyone can put anything
on it, and you don't know when the mods will notice. It may be AFTER you get the
8/9/2015
Page 23 of 26
information you use. True research means scholar.google.com, actually going to

your local library, and a bunch of other avenues you of all people know exist that
you can use, and would use if it were about any other subject. Red Jack is right,
the only parallel that comes close to what black people have went through is the
Native Americans, and if you were actually interested in learning you'd have
figured this out by now. But you're not, and here we are.
Quote
The claim that this topic is taboo, is, well, unwarranted. On the other hand, I've little emotional investment
in this topic, tending to operate more in analytic machine mode. It some of you, like Geoff, find it too "close
to home" to discuss, too upsetting too discuss with anyone who is not black, or who does not already
embrace everything you think and feel with uncritical acceptance, well, I can understand and respect that
too. For totally legitimate reasons this is a far more emotional issue for many of you than it is for me. One
that some of you would rather not discuss. In that case, I guess we can just move on. Again, my intention
was not to upset of offend anyone.
No, its not taboo, just amazingly foolish cause there is no information to back this
up, just your own opinion and cursory glances. You're trying to tell US, black
people, that you have looked at our culture from the outside and made these
determinations, like you have any idea what you're talking about. You always play
these games on this forum, and because you make it into long essays, people (like
the non petulant members you mentioned) attempt to engage you in conversation,
when you're not doing anything other than humoring them. Others, like Red Jack,
see right through your bull and call you on it.
Just so we're clear, I'M not trying to convince you of a damn thing. I'm taking a
page from your book and keeping my mind made up about you. Difference is I'm
basing it on your patterns through the years, and if there's ever any doubt or
reason why, all I have to do is come right back to this thread, arguably the most
arrogant and ridiculous one you've made to date, the ultimate culmination of your
"contribution" to this site. I will never understand why the owners have not ejected
you PERMANENTLY ages ago.

Does anyone else wish to discuss this topic of American slavery, whether it has any lingering effect, or not,
and if you believe it does, what that effect might be?
Honestly, I do believe this to be an interesting and possibly important topic. First, if you don't accept the
notion that there really is any lingering effect, that is important to know. I sympathize with that view,
particularly as the the "cultural" point, but I'm not sure it is accurate. As I said before, I just don't know. On
the other hand, if you do believe that even today some impact lingers, what do you believe it to be? Solely
economic? Some residual cultural impact? What?
???
If nobody is interested in discussing the topic, that's fine too.
I want to talk about it all day long, but not with people whose minds are closed like
yours is. I just wish you were honest about that fact but, hey, if wishes were
horses.

8/9/2015
Page 24 of 26
BP, all I did was ask a question. My mind is not at all made up on this issue. Not at
all. Indeed, I explained that I have very mixed feelings about the whole subject,
for the reasons I stated above. If you carefully read what I wrote, above, instead of
simply employing assumptions, you will see that. If you don't wish to discuss the
topic, that's your right.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you will note that I agreed that the explanation
provided as to the use of normally offensive words in a non-offensive context made
some sense, even though it is unusual. How does that show that my mind is "made
up?"
My point in the latter part of the discussion above, regarding slavery and the
magnitude of the uprisings, is that black people are no different than any other
people. That people subjected to unimaginable circumstances, such as slavery (or
the Holocaust), respond in ways that for us, from the comfort of our armchairs, my
be difficult to fathom. Because it is not how we imagine we would like to see
ourselves respond in similar circumstances. God willing, may none of us ever face
circumstances so horrible.
As to the magnitude of the uprisings during the Civil War, I did what was
recommended. The post was long as I made a point to both cite and quote the
material, as I thought some folks might actually be interested in it. I never
imagined that Encyclopedia Britannica could evoke such emotion! :o

BP, all I did was ask a question. My mind is not at all made up on this issue. Not at all. Indeed, I explained
that I have very mixed feelings about the whole subject, for the reasons I stated above. If you carefully
read what I wrote, above, instead of simply employing assumptions, you will see that. If you don't wish to
discuss the topic, that's your right.
Well since I have your permission now... ::)

I know what my rights are, I don't need you to express them to me. I don't need
your permission for anything.
Anyway, I didn't even have to go far for proof of you having your mind made up.
"If I read what I [you] wrote." Indeed, I did, and responded to it in kind, thanks.
There's more than one opinion besides your own, and pointing that out does not
mean I didn't read anything.
Quote
My point in the latter part of the discussion above, regarding slavery, is that black people are no different
than any other people.
Yeah, except they are. No other ethnic group had their culture stripped away to the
point that black people has. And to imply that they sympathize or want to be like
the dominant group who did that to us, with two (!!) resources to back that up?
More on that below...
Quote
That people subjected to unimaginable circumstances, such as slavery (or the Holocaust), respond in ways
that for us, from the comfort of our armchairs, my be difficult to fathom. Because it is not how we imagine
8/9/2015
Page 25 of 26
we would like to see ourselves respond in similar circumstances. God willing, may none of us ever face
circumstances so horrible.
This is where you pretend empathy to hide your true motivations to teach. Easier
to point out without a 50 page essay you're used to writing.
Quote
As to the magnitude of the uprisings during the Civil War, I did what was recommended. The post was long
as I made a point to both cite and quote the material, as I thought some folks might actually be interested
in it. I never imagined that Encyclopedia Britannica could evoke such emotion! :o
This is where you play games, here in the form of rephrasing the argument.
Apparently you're some form of lawyer, so you know better than to use TWO
resources (one, wiki, which technically doesn't count) and then calling it a day.
And, I love this one, "employ assumptions" like you accused me of doing to cover
your tracks. The only emotion evoked is annoyance that one who knows better like
yourself isn't actually digging for information, only strengthening his own point.
These are all the markings of a troll, clear and clear, you're just the more
sophisticated kind, but then again not really. Like Red Jack said, you see this as
sociology class with yourself as not even the teacher but as the dean who is
lowering himself to teach in the first place. Disgusting. Further conversation with
you is no different than wrestling with a pig, the person wrestling just gets dirty
and the pig enjoys it. You're feeding off this in some way, and I'm done
contributing to it. Maybe the other "non-petulant" members will give you the ego
boost you need, I don't know. I'm just back to wondering how you're still here.
One of life's mysteries.

Also, apologies to Red Jack for using your name when talking to this...person. You
normally say the things I'm thinking and when you bowed out, I had to say
SOMETHING, but that's the only reason I brought your name up in the first place,
not as a "shield" or whatever. Hope we cool.

OK, fine BP, I understand your perception of me, and respectfully disagree,
particularly with regard to your comments regarding race. There is nothing wrong
with asking a question, or looking into an assertion that someone else makes on
the Forum, or sharing the views of experts in the field who hold a contrary point of
view (if that is what you happen to find), or identifying deceptive rhetorical devices
used by an author of a Wikipedia entry.
Now, is anyone interested in discussing the substantive issues raised on this
thread? Including, for example, the comments of Curtis or Wise Son on the first
page? Or more broadly the impacts of slavery? Both historically, and the extent
those impacts are still felt today? Because the substantive topic is what is really
interesting. (In contrast to the personal stuff).
When I said that black people are like all other people, I meant as human beings;
psychologically, in terms of reactions. Because at our core we are all the same.
8/9/2015
Page 26 of 26
When drawing comparisons and contrasts, one can point out similarities and
differences in horrific circumstances others have experienced. Because there are
similarities. There are also differences. I agree that the being largely "stripped" of
one's traditional African culture is a major distinction from the experience of some
other subjugated groups. So ... how did that play out, in terms of the black
American culture that did develop under slavery?
When I asked the question about Stockholm Syndrome, I was not suggesting that
black Americans today support the racism and oppression of the slave master.
What I was referring to is the fact that this culture did develop under slavery for
many many years, though not for the last 150 years. What I was wondering about
is whether some aspects of that racism, while consciously rejected as repulsive,
still found its way into some unconscious aspects of the culture, in a paradoxical
sort of way. If the subculture was forged in a cauldron of racism for generations
before emancipation, what impact did that have on the subculture? After
emancipation, did that impact wholly dissipate, or are there still effects to this day?
With the N-word thing possibly being an example. It was just a question.
But the issue is really broader than this. The broader issue is the impact of slavery,
period.
To the extent people do discuss this topic, I'll hold back, as I'm more interested in
what others have to say. If folks don't want to address this issue, then that's that.
SMF 2.0.9 | SMF 2014, Simple Machines
8/9/2015

Stockholm Synthrome

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Stockholm Synthrome

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Title: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

You're absolutely right, Catch22!

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Bullsh*t. No one is "promoting" the use of nigger as a way of addressing anyone.

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Contrary to Redjacks contention, Encyclopedia Britannica states:

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

not an uncommon response. As a result, overseers in the Mississippi Valley feared

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

put on pikes along the levee.

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

@%#$-ing cheap ass* legal aid lawyer.

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Unlike Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica utilizes a professional staff that is held

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Title: Re: Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

Print Page - Stockholm Syndrome Manifested in American Black Culture?

The characterization of the Spartacus example as "my" example was at best a