Once again, the issue of the U.S. and its linkage to slavery has reared its ugly head. This time, the debate was triggered by whether or not the Smithsonian Museum has a political agenda. Arguably, the institution’s interpretation of this ugly period in our history is delivered from a left wing perspective. The exhibits, by failing to tell the whole story about slavery, paint the picture of a sin that, but for the existence of whites, would never have thrived; such a tale makes for revisionist history.
President Donald Trump made his criticism known writing:
The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.
We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made.
The Smithsonian’s main focus is on playing off the fame of a lame racist blame game concerning slavery. Lost in the museum’s effort is an understanding that slavery was a global sin occurring over a period of thousands of years. Historically, it was a typical feature of civilization, existing in most societies. It spread significantly as man transitioned from a nomadic life to an agrarian one. And, sadly, the institution still exists today in various forms including human trafficking, forced marriages, child slavery, etc. with its victims numbering worldwide in the tens of millions.
Africans had engaged in slavery long before the U.S. had won its independence or even before the Colonies had formed. On the African continent, it was the price paid by those defeated in tribal wars. While the Portuguese were the first Europeans to venture inside the African continent to capture inhabitants for transport back to their country as slaves, tribal war victors, having an abundance of slaves, recognized the wealth to be had by transporting them to ports for sale to European slave traders. Therefore, clearly a key reason as to why the trans-Atlantic slave trade thrived was because African tribal war victors played a significant role in bringing their product to a viable market.
Historian David Eltis tells us, “almost all peoples have been both slaves and slaveholders at some point in their histories.” Thus, it is not possible to claim the institution is endemic to one particular race. Different groups—at different times and places—have experienced slavery both as masters and slaves. It has never existed as a permanent institution between an oppressor and the oppressed.
Historians generally agree slavery has been widespread. In fact, it is safe to assume that few inhabitants of planet Earth today have not descended from those who were one-time slaves. Thus, no race is without sin concerning slavery. It is only a matter of the particular time era placed under the microscope.
Yet, many anti-white activists insist the stain of America’s era of slavery stigmatizes, with prejudicial guilt, all non-black generations that have followed. Here’s an analogy: consider a modern day version of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which Hester Prynne, having committed adultery, was publicly shamed and forced to wear the scarlet letter “A” for the rest of her life, but then so was Pearl, her daughter, and all their descendants thereafter. Except this scarlet letter is “R” for “racist,” which leftist “activists” brand all whites.
These activists embellish upon the historical record, equating slavery with racism, as well as the human psyche, arguing that “racism” is not just a “one and done” sin of particular individuals, but instead a “genetic” ill automatically passed from one generation to the next. Thus, in the collective mind of these activists, all the sinner’s descendants must be held accountable for the original sin.
Ironically, this psyche has been promoted to such an extent that a recent study reached a surprising finding. While both blacks and whites agree anti-black racism has decreased during the last sixty years, whites believe anti-white racism has increased, claiming it makes for a bigger problem today than anti-black racism.
Are there anti-black racists among America’s white population today? Sure—and there are anti-white racists existing among the black population as well. Conservative speaker Charlie Kirk encountered just such an extreme activist in a recent exchange. The activist exhibited no effort to engage in a civil and rational dialogue, choosing instead to play the blame game with an argument difficult to follow as it was laced with extensive profanity that had to be bleeped out in order to be aired.
While slavery of any sort cannot be condoned and there is no denying African slaves in America suffered greatly, their descendants here today have benefitted significantly in an important regard. When compared to their African peers whose ancestors avoided the trans-Atlantic slave trade, on average blacks in America are much better off than those remaining in the land of their forefathers.
Despite no longer being bound by the chains of colonialist rule, most Africans enjoy a far inferior standard of living to that enjoyed by America’s blacks who personally did not have to suffer the hardships their forefathers did. There should be little doubt that blacks in the U.S. today enjoy far greater opportunities than their African brothers do—brothers who would relish those same opportunities.
The Bible tells us that Jesus challenged a crowd seeking to stone a woman who had committed adultery by posing a thought-provoking statement: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Such reflection caused her accusers to drop their stones and leave. It is a statement upon which these activists should also reflect rather than choosing to simply play a lame racist blame game of eternal white guilt.
Image: Public domain.