This posting is well worth reading again, and again. Anita >From: [log in to unmask] >Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history > <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Madison's slaves (and black descendants?) >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:22:23 -0400 > >All of us who talk about the history of the 18th and 19th centuries can >only make inferences based upon the data that we have available to us. > >No one disagrees that some of the WPA narratives contain favorable >descriptions, by people who had been enslaved, of slavery. > >The question before us is what to make of that data. As many of us have >tried to explain to you, at some length, the data must be taken with a >grain of salt, for a host of reasons. A persuasive interpretation of the >past must not only adduce data to support its conclusions, it must also >subject the data itself to critical analysis. This is true, by the way, >for any rational inquiry--historical or otherwise. If you use bad data, >you will get bad results. In this case, the data is not so much "bad" as >it is skewed. It is skewed for a whole host of reasons, most of which I >and various others on this list serv have discussed at some length. > >I do not disagree that some slaves and former slaves wrote or said positive >things about life under slavery. The larger question before us is, given >this fact, what can we conclude about the nature of slavery. > >Some of us here are well familiar with both the data (the WPA narratives) >AND the analysis of their provenance and reliability. I conclude from >reflection about this data that despite the existence of some favorable >descriptions of slavery in the WPA narratives, slavery was a pretty >wretched and awful institution, that slavery systematically degraded and >dehumanized the people subjected to it, and that slavery brutalized both >slave and slave-owner. I conclude that the testimony common from >apologists of the "lost cause"--that slavery was a mostly benign >institution, that most slaves were well treated and lived happily, and that >most masters were benevolent--is false, and certainly is not sustained by >any reasonable and fair-minded assessment of what the data tell us. > >My guess is that most of the other people here who have read this data and >have thought deeply about the circumstances under which it was collected >will agree with me. But if you do choose to disagree with me, it is >incumbent on you to explain why you believe the data is NOT skewed the way >that I have suggested that it is. >Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. >Department of History >James Madison University _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm