1. Most people can see the obvious problems with this, but worth noting that insidious thing here is that in defining Hemings etc. as "slaves who agreed to be slaves" (or more Freudenly as "salves") goal is to shift moral onus from slave-owners to enslaved.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1122269282539274240 …
-
-
3. Many have properly pointed out the absurdity of thinking there was any sort of non-coerced "deal" between a child enslaved at birth and the wealthy Founding father who owned her & her family. There's also Hanson's striking ignorance of how historians grapple with agency
Show this thread -
4. A lot of the most productive work on slavery since WWII has grappled with slavery: with trying to see how even within an oppressive system the enslaved resisted, not just in rebellion but other means (slow working, flight, culture).
Show this thread -
5. But the tradition of emphasizing slave agency (which really goes back to WEB Du Bois & runs through Leslie Owens & Gutman) never talks about slaves choosing their status -- it's all about resistance within the system not Hanson's individualistic model of deal making.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And of course at the point of their alleged negotiation we all know that Hemmings and Jefferson possessed equal bargaining power.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It doesn't shift culpability at all. Jefferson holds all the chips. Heming is bargaining with Lucifer. Whatever desperation drove him to that is all due to the evil of slaveowners.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not to mention that Hemings was born into slavery and never knew what normal life was like.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.