- Was abolition of slavery inevitable according to Wilentz? “Inevitable”–means it had to happen and could not have not happened. What does he mean by “relentless unforeseen?” Does this agree or disagree with Hannah-Jones? When we look back at history, how do we see the events vs. how did the people at the time experience them?
- One main difference between Wilentz and Hannah-Jones is that Wilentz does not tell the story of the role of the African-American in liberation from enlsavement. On the other hand. Hannah-Jones’ thesis is that the African-American contribution to abolition of slavery and the continued struggle for equality for all is of the utmost importance in American history.
- Wilentz’s main point is that is was not known at the time that slavery would be abolished. There was a great struggle between proslavery and antislavery world views among the white population.
- In paragraph 3, Wilentz references the 1740-1750s “explosive consciousness of man’s freedom to shape the world in accordance with his own will and reason.” In general, this refers to the “enlightenment.” Hannah-Jones will be quick to point out that this “universal freedom” was not extended to the enslaved, and slavery did exist at that time. Wilentz is arguing that the moral rejection of slavery was advanced by “scrutinizing inequality, personal sovereignty, national sovereignty and servititue of every kind” (paragraph 4).
- In paragraph 5, he says that though slavery had always existed, “the struggle to abolish it came abruptly.” He sees the American Revolution as part of this process, that there was an anti-slavery movement in the Declaration of Independence, but it was violently opposed by the proslavery forces that existed based on feudal and ancient world view of conquest of peoples and social hierarchy.
- Write your own reflection (400-600words) on the first 19 paragraphs of Wilentz. Compare it to Hannah-Jones. Post it by Monday 1pm.
- Note: I will make comments on your previous Hannah-Jones posts by Monday 1pm.
2 thoughts on “Comments on Wilentz (first 19 paragraphs). Write a reflection, 400-600 words, on Wilentz in relation to Hannah-Jones.”
Comments are closed.
Jeanne Ngoma
James Wu
English 101: Composition I, Section 0815
March 9th, 2020
Sean Wilentz
“American Slavery and the Relentless Unforeseen”
Wilentz’s concept of relentless unforeseen is what children study in school as history, commonly known as harmless history, where unexpected things are hard to avoid and disasters are turned into long poems to justify why certain things, such as slavery happened in the past. However, Hannah-Jones experienced things differently because since little, she was told in school that the American flag was not for black Americans. Their story as a people started with enslavement, and they did not contribute that much in building the most powerful country in the world.
Comparing to Hannah-Jones, Wilentz does not talk about the story of African-Americans in liberation from enslavement. Hannah-Jones wants people to acknowledge that African-Americans have been helpful and important to this great country even though they were not treated well in return. She even stated that the United States of America would not exist without African-Americans.
In late 1740s and 1750s, western union reached a turning point. There was a struggle between pro-slavery and anti-slavery among white people, and that struggle made some of them aware of certain things, such as slavery, and for the first time, slavery appeared as an offense to God, reason and rights. While Hannah-Jones still states that the declaration of independence made by white men that all men were equal was not extended to the enslaved because they were left out and treated inhumanly, Wilentz states that the moral rejection of slavery was already advanced. Slavery had existed for so long, and the struggle to abolish it came suddenly. He declares that there has always been an anti-slavery movement, but it was oppressed and dominated by pro-slavery forces that existed based on social hierarchy.
Slaveholders were supposed to be condemned for their lack of empathy, hypocrisy, mendacity and cruelty, but some of them enslaved people until the day they died without being judged by the justice court. American slavery did not die out but instead it extended, which turned south America into the most powerful slavery regime in the world. According to Wilentz, slaveholders such as Jefferson and James Madison had troubled consciences because they perceived slavery as an intolerable offense, so they did not do anything to end it.
Abolition of slavery was inevitable, and it happened in 1865. It had to happen in order to stop white colonists from torturing and exploiting African-Americans. Wilentz points out that people often neglect the historical understanding and do not take seriously the fact that the United States of America and its roots also fought against slavery. He agrees with Hannah-Jones’ way of thinking about the primary reason why Americans declared independence from Britain, which is because they wanted to ensure that slavery would continue, so they could still make some money.
When I look back at history, I feel sad knowing that black slaves were consistently living with fear and anxiety. They were forced to leave their families, their own lives, and go to the new world to work for free. I cannot even imagine how hard and difficult it had been for them. To me, white colonists are unconscious people with some psychological problems and greedy because they were never satisfied. The more they got, the more they wanted to continue with the slave trade. I am not saying that they were evil or bad people. I just think that instead of enslaving African-Americans for their own profits, they could have done things differently without hurting and destroying anyone. Even after slavery ended, it is extremely sad to notice that racism still exist, and African-Americans are somewhat still treated badly by society and considered troublesome presence. We are all human beings first, and people should remember that.
After many readings done about slavery in the United States of America, I think that I have judged and criticized white colonists a bit too much and hard although I do not appreciate what they did. I completely understand Hannah-Jones’ points of view and I am with her, but while reading her work, I noticed that she has taken things too personal regarding her family’s past life experience with slavery and racism. Her family had a hard time in the past, and they were kept as slaves against their will. They were deprived of freedom, so I understand her resentment.
Indeed, white colonists could have done things differently, but they are also human beings. And, as human beings, we all make mistakes and bad choices that we may regret later. I am not trying to defend them, but I am just trying to understand why they gave so much hate to Africans Americans. We all learn, see and perceive things differently depending on beliefs and cultures. They maybe thought that what they learned from their parents or cultures were good, so slavery was not a bad thing for them. Nowadays, we all know that enslaving people is an immoral act, so let continue fighting to make things get better than before by supporting each other.