In 2005, I published Autobiography of an Ex-White Man, a book about my experiences
during my sixteen years as a member of the W. E. B. Du Bois Department of
Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and what those
years taught me about America. In the
third chapter there appear the following paragraphs. They might help readers to understand more
fully the protests now roiling American cities.
“Needless to say, any individual slave was
not likely to be whipped very often. Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman,
in a widely discussed and much criticized book, [Time on the Cross 1974] report that on one plantation whose owner,
Bennet Barrow, kept careful records of his two hundred slaves, about half the
slaves were not whipped at all during a two year period, and overall there were
0.7 whippings per slave per year. Since a number of readers have actually
concluded from this bit of data that things weren’t so bad in the Old South, I
tried a little thought experiment in an effort to imagine what effect whippings
might have had on a slave.
Down the road from the University of
Massachusetts is Amherst College, a famous private liberal arts institution
that has on several occasions been ranked the best college in America. It
has a faculty of two hundred – just about as large as the slave population on
Barrow’s plantation. Suppose a whipping post were set up in front of the
Robert Frost Library in the central college common. And suppose that on
an average of once every four or five days, an Amherst College professor were
stripped to the waist, man or woman, and whipped at that post until the blood
ran for some infraction of college rules or simply for failing to grade papers
on time. Now, as a member of the faculty, I would presumably be
intelligent enough and educated enough to be able to calculate that my chances
of being whipped were only 0.7 per year, and I would also have noticed that if
I was extremely careful, and never talked back to the Dean or the President, I
might never be whipped at all. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to
suppose that the steady progression of brutal public whippings would have, how
shall we say, a chilling effect on me.
Such a fantasy seems absurd, of course, but
that is just another way of saying that we White people don’t really think of
the slaves as people like ourselves, regardless of the political correctness of
our sentiments. Whipping slaves is terrible, cruel, inhuman, but it is
something that happens to other people, whereas whipping professors, bizarre
though that may sound, is something that might happen to me.”
17 comments:
This is an incredibly powerful piece of writing. I wish I had your skill and insights. I've taken the liberty of copying and pasting it to emails to a number of friends and relatives.
I very much like your Autobiography of an Ex-White Man. In my class, I've used your thought experiment in that book of the two families--one white, one black--in the economic/social conditions that obtained after WWII and their aggregate relative wealth after 30 years or so. The whipped slave thought experiment is also very illustrative. You could halve the numbers to 100 and 0.35 and apply it to the US Senate rather than to the faculty of a small liberal arts college. The thought of seeing a Senator stripped to the waist, tied to a post, and lashed for a breach of protocol of the "world's greatest deliberative body" or for insider trading might concentrate the mind of these esteemed lawgivers (much like the thought of hanging).
Thank you Dr. Wolff. Will use it in class.
On the other hand, do the thought experiment with a big factory of 'low-skill' minimum wage laborers and in modern America it wouldn't really seem all that far-fetched. I think the examples of senators and professors is a not entirely fair comparison in the context of the myth of the meritocracy that somewhat elevates the status of those groups above the average citizen. We tolerate all kinds of abuses against working class folk in the interest of keeping the machinery running.
Notwithstanding, it is of course much more easy to imagine (and actually see and come to almost accept as normal) brutality against blacks in the US instead of whites. Just turn on an episode of Cops or an older cops and robbers movie. Not to even get started on the prison system..
Anonymous, I think you have missed the point of the thought experiment. The point was to get the academic readers of Fogel and Engerman to FEEL what it might be like to be a slave on a plantation, not to compare slaves with low paid industrial workers. That is a different matter.
It's not that white people don't think of slaves as people like ourselves, we do, but we don't feel that much empathy for them. In general, people are not are going to feel empathy for atrocities which occurred over 100 years ago to people in a wholly different social condition and context: we don't feel that much empathy for the slaughtered Native-Americans, for children who died laboring the coal mines of Britain in the early 19th century, or for that matter for the victims of the 1918 pandemic (until this pandemic occurred).
The Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom has written a book called "Against Empathy" in which he outlines the limits of empathy and instead advocates for what he calls "rational compassion" that is, compassion guided by "conscious deliberate reasoning".
Using conscious deliberate reasoning, most of us, at least those who follow this blog, utterly condemn slavery and racism in general.
s. wallerstein
I make a distinction between the examples you give and slavery because were are not obviously living with the consequences of the massacre of the Native-Americans or the victims of the 1918 pandemic in the way were living with the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow. The surviving Natives are too few and too isolated for their plight to confront me every day. But that's not the case with the consequences of slavery. And too many of our contemporaries would be right at home with slavery or Jim Crow. They are overtly racist in the actions they take, the words they speak, the policies they advocate. They are among us every day including, to my disgust, one of my son's in-laws. I'm totally indifferent to the fact that Aristotle was a slave owner; I'm not indifferent to the fact that Thomas Jefferson was.
Exactly as you say, but empathy is an emotional response which is not under our conscious control. I personally am as emotionally indifferent to Jefferson being a slave owner as Aristotle being one, but I share your concern for the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow and thus, I am more rationally invested in condemning Jefferson than Aristotle.
So I would not expect today's students of Amherst to be emotionally moved by slaves being whipped 150 years ago, but I would expect them to be rationally concerned about the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow as they are manifested in racism in contemporary society.
If I may ask, what overly racist policies does your son-in-law advocate?
s. wallerstein
I was speaking not of my son, but of his in-laws--his wife's parents. My son doesn't advocate any racist policies that I'm aware of and would be very surprised to learn that advocated any. I'm not aware of any specific policies on the part of his now deceased mother-in-law or her husband. But we heard remarks from both of them at a Thanksgiving dinner at my son's house; my wife and I registered our objections in rather undiplomatic terms and that ended any social relationship between us. We saw him a couple of years ago at her funeral and haven't seen him since. I won't go into all the details, but my wife and I have talked about them a number of times since the incident--and can't really get over the fact that both of them were intelligent, accomplished individuals. And to hear such rot from their mouths stunned us then and continues to puzzle us now.
David Palmeter,
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. I read it as "son-in-law" when you wrote "son's in-laws".
It happens in the best families. I've had so many political arguments with my son that I refuse to talk politics or social issues in general with him and insist on keeping the conversation to pleasant subjects like my grand-daughter's new trampoline. No, he's not a racist, but like you, I won't go into the details.
Chris Lebron, a political philosopher at Johns Hopkins, author of among other things Black Lives Matter: The Brief History of an Idea, had a piece a few days ago at the NYT site The Stone, a site I v. rarely read but I happened to read that piece today.
That led to me an interview w Lebron from a while back (in the series What is It Like to be a Philosopher?), in which he talked about a number of things, including why he didn't like Charlottesville when he taught for several years at Univ of Va. Ends w a comment along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) "the whole place is geared around the creation of a slaveholder and that causes problems for someone like me." (Also he mentions more specific things about black/white relations, police, etc.)
His remarks put Charlottesville in a bit of a different light for me (though I am a different race and age than Lebron, and do not work in the academy). I cd roughly understand (exercising empathy?) why he didn't like the place. (I've never lived there, but I've enjoyed visiting very occasionally and briefly. Haven't been there in quite a while, though.)
P.s. Of course there was the infamous alt-right protest there in 2017 but that cd be viewed as the work of people mostly from outside the immediate area, which I think it probably was
I don't think of people as people like myself.
'I personally am as emotionally indifferent to Jefferson being a slave owner as Aristotle being one,.. I am more rationally invested in condemning Jefferson than Aristotle.'
Does 'condemn' really have a rational, versus an emotional usage? Or, similarly, you might declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil, while being emotionally indifferent? You just 'condemn', in the sense of like openly criticizing someone who is behaving inappropriately or somesuch? Is there a rational case for 'following your emotions' lurking in this? Maybe we ponder Monticello’s grand house on a hill and 5,000-acre plantation, the only former home of an American president to be granted UN world heritage status, about 120 miles from Washington DC, and also, we ponder the brutal, unpaid labor that made this personal laboratory and genteel life of the mind possible, and it’s always more complicated than heroes and villains or such. I figure it's not really about Jefferson -- slavery was one of the cornerstones of European colonization across the Americas.
Prof. Wolff, I have a question regarding Hume's idea of the constant conjunction.
I understood that we conceive an object as a cause or an effect, in light of our past experiences, and our remembrance of their constant conjunction. My question is, how could these past experiences be remembered as a bundle, or in other words, how could my recollection of them come about without an underlying principle that would pack them in a unity, they without that principle would never appear to the mind as a coherent whole, but would otherwise become dispersed in the memory with no magnet or a hook to fetch them and present them to the mind, so that we could then apply the idea of constant conjunction to them.
That is an extremely good question. The answer is that the mind associates them together because of their resemblance. The mind's disposition to associate them in this way is something it brings to experience NOT something it gets from experience. That is why I called my journal article "Hume's Theory of Mental Activity."
I am more concerned about what racism does today. It's effects today are chilling. One recent anecdote. I was watching the online show Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee by Jerry Seinfeld, the famous comedian. In the episodes he's usually driving an antique car from a local dealer to go pickup a famous comedian in that comedian's hometown for coffee. Usually there's an entire television crew following them in another car and taping the entire interaction, which includes walking down city sidewalks.
In this one episode Jerry is driving Chris Rock to breakfast in New Jersey when they get pulled over by a cop. A combination of Lamborghini and the sight of an Af. Am. in the passenger seat had something to do with the stop. While the cop was inspecting the paperwork that Jerry pulled from glove compartment, we could see Chris had completely turned into a nervous wreck. He was not the usual smiley comedian we are used to seeing him on TV. Jerry even tried to joke and cheer up Chris, but Chris was having none of it until they were free to leave.
No amount of money or status today can insulate one from racism. No amount of education seems to wipe the racist DNA we all inherited from our colonial forefathers.
Post a Comment