Whose Sorry Now?

 I'm trying to come back from my struggles to survive and, so far as I can, to function at a better level after my bouts of cancer. Considering that I may now have a third cancer, a rare pancreatic cancer, this may be a wasted endeavor. Nevertheless, I am trying. And this is why I am again making an effort to make at least an occasional post on my blog.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/25/slaves-trade-amends-grenada-laura-trevelyan?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

This article addresses a problem that has come into national focus recently, although it is hardly a new problem. The problem is hardly a simple one. Everyone touched by this must ask themselves what to do about not only public reparations, but also personal and private penance for atrocities committed by your ancestors.

Putting myself at odds with the doctrine of most  Christian sects, I regard the concept of original sin being passed on as morally reprehensible. Children should not be punished for the sins of their ancestors, and we certainly should not be considered to be born sinful and evil, because of what Adam and Eve did 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

Still, being proud of your family history when it is good means it is unreasonable to refuse to be ashamed of your family history when it is bad.

I do not know if any of my ancestors held slaves. I don't know enough of my family history, which is in and of itself a shame, but so it is. And it is possible that some of my ancestors may have been guilty of this crime against humanity. However, I do not know.

After all, my family's Rancho, bordered on the South by the Rio Grande, was a land grant from His Most Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, no less. In other words, it goes back a long time. It was in the family hands until the property was finally sold decades ago. Obviously, it was in Texas , which, upon becoming a state, was a slave owning state.  Prior to that, during the Spanish era, there were Indian slaves held in the region. Did any of my ancestors hold slaves to work the horse ranch? I don't know.

It wasn't a plantation or I would be certain. But I don't know. If they did, I would not be proud of it, and indeed would be ashamed of that element of our history.

However, the land is long gone, and so are the ancestors who may or may not have held slaves. So, I will say again, each individual, each corporation, each university, or any other group which formerly profited from the slave trade, must decide what to do about making amends. 

I don't think there is an algorithm to solve this profound and disturbing moral challenge.

In this, and in all other areas, each and everyone of us must search our own soul and take what action we feel we must.

History As Propaganda

This stimulated me to actually make a new post! I have been neglecting my blog so terribly because I spend so much time publishing on Facebook. And for personal reasons it has been challenging. It’s good to make another post.

A response to the YouTube presentation, Untold History: White Slaves in America

In reality there is nothing to do with political correctness when we do not refer to indentured white servants as slaves. It has to do with historical fact. Indentured servitude was exactly that. It was a form of bondage, but at that time apprentices were often treated very poorly as well. 

Still, both groups retained their basic human rights. They were not property. Their testimony in court was accepted.  Their children were not born into bondage. Their children could not be sold away from their parents. They could not be brutally beaten. They could not be raped. They could not be tortured.  They could not be murdered.

At least not legally.

All of those things could be legally done to black slaves who were considered to be chattel, that is, property. Or, as the Dred Scott decision pointed out, not human.

Now, I would agree that there was a form of white slavery in America.  These men (and it only applied to men) were treated very much as chattel property, although legally they were not. Again, technically they had rights. Said rights were almost never respected.  They could be beaten and brutalized, and if they were murdered it was unlikely to ever have been accurately reported.  That is, those whites who were swept up in the Jim Crow chain gang down South. Technically, they were convicted prisoners, but they were treated as slaves. 

Of course, they would be released after they served their sentences, which was not true of actual slaves.  Neither could they be sold to a new owner, although they were sometimes “rented“ or “loaned“ to local businessman to complete specific tasks before being returned to their cells at night.

So, for both the indentured sevants and the men in the chain gang, at the end of the term of servitude, they were released and were full, free human beings. This was never true of a black chattel slave.

On a rare occasion, such a slave might be allowed to buy his freedom from his master, and perhaps even be allowed to buy his family’s freedom, but it was very hard for a slave to earn any amount of money much less the cost of such high-quality “property”.  Finally, once free, a slave was always subject to being seized and resold.

Our history is very ugly. We humans are known for our cruelty and greed, but chattel slavery was the worst of the worst.

I must note that there were actual white slaves at the time of the founding of America, but not in America. The Barbary pirates and other Muslim groups had for centuries been perfectly content to enslave whites. It was one of the causes of the Barbary Wars (a series of two wars).  They are recalled in the Marines’ hymn as “the shores of Tripoli”.

Furthermore, the speaker does have a correct point in that slavery has existed for all of human history as far as we can tell. The Romans enslaved everybody, but actually their slaves were able to become freedman and, once free, were respected Roman citizens, something impossible to America’s black slaves. Some slaves, once freed, actually became wealthy in Rome.

The Greeks also enslaved anyone they could, except fellow Helenes.  Well, some Greek cities toward the end of the Greek era did enslave their fellow Greeks, and the rest of the Helenes were horrified at the practice.

It is worthy to note that many of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes became slaveowners.  Numerous slaves died on the Trail of Tears along with their Native American masters.

If the  author’s case is that we humans are really stinking and pretty rotten as a species,  I won’t argue with him.  But black slavery was a different thing in America from other forms of slavery at other times in history, except when it was much the same (it all depends on what nation and what era we are   referring to), but white slavery never existed in America. Forms of bondage, yes. But not slavery. And certainly not chattel slavery.

These facts are bitterly denied by many conservative websites, but they are conflating the very harsh and sometimes brutal treatment of indentured servants with chattel slavery. The conditions, as harsh as they were, were much better for the indentured servant, although they were still horrific by today’s standards.

It’s all a matter of historical fact.

If you’re interested in a fact check on the subject click on the following link:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-irish-slaves-idUSKBN23O2BS

Additional notes:

It is interesting note that the author also wants to see the American public school system destroyed and to return to the appalling situation of 200 years ago with apprenticeships replacing education.  No more free education. You have to pay for it, and suffer for it, and be abused for it.  

Remember, he himself identified apprenticeship as often brutal and sometimes even a form of slavery. Yet he wants to return to it for our children. It’s better than a public education, isn’t it?

Throughout the presentation, horrific pictures are posted as if they are signs of the evils of white slavery. In fact most of these are pictures of atrocities committed against criminals, rebels, and other “ne'er-do-wells” which have nothing to do with the slavery. I’m pretty certain that some of those pictures were Russian serfs being abused. What does that have to do with slavery in America? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Amazingly, the author compares illegal acts such as kidnapping and shanghaiing individuals to serve on ships as proof that slavery was an accepted practice. Such actions were illegal. While it was very difficult to get the captain convicted for such a crime, he was a criminal. Peddling in human flesh in America, as long as the flesh was black, was totally legal and even actively encouraged by our laws.

Better yet, we suddenly see a picture, for no discernible reason, promoting Michael Hoffmann‘s hate filled screed, Judaism Discovered. Hoffman is a notorious holocaust denier and antisemite.  At first it’s shocking to see this suddenly appear in the middle of the interview, but on second thought, of course this website is also promoting vile bigotry, anti-Semitism, and hatred. Are you really surprised? I am not.

In fairness to the interviewee, I do not know if he was aware that this book was being pushed during his presentation. Nevertheless, the fact that it was promoted tells you what kind of website promotes his book.

And now, I will confess. Halfway through the video I simply couldn’t stand any more of this nonsense. I did not watch the second half of the video. My patience was exhausted.  To put it another way, “When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Revelation 21:8

Democracy? What Democracy?

In response to a friend’s post referring to an article which declared that we are not a democracy, we are a republic, and that this is a good thing because it prevents tyranny of the majority, I commented as follows. This makes for a rather short post but it is one which should be sufficiently provocative to generate a great deal of discussion.

In fact, we are republican democracy.  A blend of both.   We are not a pure democracy. Neither are we a pure republic.

The electoral college was created for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the power of the southern states by allowing them to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person for their share of representation. It was intended to create a tyranny of the minority. It has succeeded. 

Have no doubt. The electoral college is an artifact of our heritage of slavery. It is intended to ensure that the American people are not allowed to rule themselves because the founding fathers, imperfect as they were, felt that ordinary people should not be allowed to even vote. Only white, wealthy men should be allowed that power. I disagree with them on that point.

Whose Song Of The South?

https://www.news10.com/news/the-jim-crow-film-that-just-wont-die-song-of-the-south/

An extremely mixed situation. On one hand the Uncle Tom element of the story is undeniable and repulsive. On the other hand, Brer Rabbit is clearly a descendent of Anansi and the other tricksters African folklore has handed down. I find the movie to be both a celebration and honoring of some powerful elements of African/slave culture AND an ugly affirmation of racism. I do not find it surprising that one can find elements of both. Today we tend to insist that everything must be polarized into rigid absolutes. In reality, the situation is often much more complicated.

The film would make an excellent teaching vehicle. I wouldn’t recommend it below fifth grade at the lowest, middle school is probably a more effective venue. The point being that it serves two significant educational functions.

First, a discussion of Jim Crow and thus of slavery. It is a horror of America’s past which is far too often ignored in our schools. I always made a point of dealing with it honestly at an appropriate level for the children I was teaching, but I was a rarity. We did have teachers who dealt with the issue quite openly, including teachers I worked with. But most teachers are uncomfortable with the subject and simply veer away from it.

Second, it opens up the whole of folklore, including trickster tales from many cultures. How these immigrants, whether willing or unwilling, contributed to American culture is a fascinating topic and one which promotes understanding of other cultures and even of our own, which is an amalgam of these many disparate elements.

It would not be an easy topic to teach, and would require preliminary work with the community and administration, but it is one which I think would be of great importance in helping our youngsters to understand our own history and the culture in which they are embedded.

Justice Or Just Cash?

http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-slavery-reparations-criminal-justice-reform-policy-hillary-486198

As strongly as I support the Black Lives Matter movement this is a foolish, divisive, evan a self-destructive concept. It can only cause resentment and exacerbate racial divisions. Black people don't need special help. They need justice and a fair chance like every other American.

Consider the possible ramifications. If a person is half Black and half White, it can be argued that they should receive no reparations since 50% of their genetic ancestry cancels out the other 50%. Also, how would a possible recipient prove that their ancestors were here in America held in slavery as opposed to having come to America at a later time or under different circumstances? Shouldn't a White person who could prove that their ancestors were abolitionists be exempt from the reparations? Maybe they should even receive some reparations themselves.

And if we grant reparations to slave descendants, what about American Indians? What about French and Spanish individuals who had their land stolen by American settlers without any compensation? And so on, ad finitum.

Reparations? Of course, for anyone who was held in bondage. Not for their descendants.

Note: There are living individuals who suffered under Jim Crow laws...

Freedom For All! (Wealthy White Men)

On Facebook, Crushing Libs (In Our Dreams) posted: Did you notice how high on the Bill of Rights we listed the right to bear arms?
That wasn't an accident!

I responded: That's right. It was actually essential to suppress slave revolts and keep them people in their place. At least according to the founding fathers who wrote it, including Patrick Henry. Slavery forever!

Dan added: The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

Idle Thoughts -- The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

Comment on H.T.Mills statement that the only reason woman have been ancillary (subordinate ) to men is that men like it: is that a fair statement with in the context of the nineteenth century, as far as you can tell? Would it be fair statement in the twenty- first century?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mills on this point. It isn't that men didn't like it. They did. It isn't that that this wasn't one of the main causes for women to be subordinate. It was. My problem is that she makes the absolute statement that this is the only reason.

Throughout history the teachers of, the guardians of, and sometimes even the enforcers of social roles have often been women.

In one of his poems William Ross Wallace declared that, "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." The point is that it is mothers who first and most powerfully convey social norms and expected behaviors to their children. In the efforts to eliminate the horrors of female genital mutilation, one of the groups hardest to convince that this practice must be stopped is the mothers of the girls who are going to be mutilated.

This is not because mothers do not care about their daughters, it is because they do. The mothers know that within their societies this is a socially necessary act. A girl who is not mutilated is considered to be unmarriageable and inherently sexually obsessed. Similarly, it was mothers in China who had their daughters' feet horrifically and painfully mutilated so that they could have the tiny little feet which were so prized in Chinese society, the golden lilies. The "lilies" were actually disgusting to look at, but men never had to look at them since they were always kept wrapped in the presence of males.

None of this excuses the role of men in these matters. After all, it was men who demanded these things be done, usually either to control their future wives or to keep them looking "beautiful". However, much of the enforcement of these rules and the passing of them down to the next generation was in the hands of women.

It is understandable why Mills would blame men for just about everything that was wrong with society. In her era, men completely dominated and controlled the world. However, they did so with the eager cooperation of many women.

Consider the women's rights movement, often confused with the women's liberation movement. The difference is as follows: you could be in favor of women's rights and not be in favor of women's liberation. On the other hand, you could not be in favor of women's liberation and not be in favor of women's rights. We also need to remember that both of these movements had and continue to have very many different types of individuals within them. There were always radicals who were positively anti male, and there were also always women were being completely reasonable and simply wanted to be treated fairly and equally. (Male babies are testosterone poisoned females! vs. We are not second class citizens!)

Both these groups worked very hard to get the ERA, the equal rights amendment passed. This was a constitutional amendment which would have enshrined in the constitution the right of gender equity. At first it looked as if this would have a good chance of success. Then a bitter opposition arose.

The opposition was a group of conservative women led by Phyllis Shafely. They were major contributors to the defeat of the ERA. Once again, let me point out that this was a movement of women, created by women and led by women.

I repeat that it is entirely understandable why Mills would put blame exclusively on men. Especially back in the time when she was struggling for women's rights, men were determined to keep women in a state which was at times little better than owned property. Nevertheless, the fact remains that social pressures are very great on both sexes. It is difficult to stand up and say that you wish to be different. Rights are a human problem, not a gender problem.

I feel compelled to add that in the issue of slavery a similar situation applies. Here in America slavery was rapidly turned into a White versus Black issue, that is, a racial issue. To this day when African-Americans visit formal former slavecenters on the coast of Africa, many of them are shocked to learn that many of the slaves were first taken by other Africans, then sold to the White traders. Some White Americans today misunderstand this and declare that, "The Blacks sold their own people".

The fact is that African society even to this day is a tribal society. They did not see themselves in this Americanized racial sense but rather as different tribes. So one tribe was willing to make a profit by raiding and enslaving members of other tribes, people they did not consider to be fully human since they were from a different tribe. People who were not "us". People who were not "our own people".

This demonstrates that rights are a human problem, not a race problem.

Self Delusion and Emancipation

One of the most ludicrously bizarre claims made by Republicans today is that they are the party that freed the slaves, so how can they possibly be racist? This level of self-delusion is a new extreme even for them. To go to extreme focus, this is tantamount to saying that the State Department should issue warnings for all Americans going to Rome, especially if they're Christians. After all, you know what the Romans do the Christians!

Radical Republicans in the 19th century meant radically liberal. The Republicans who freed the slaves were one of the most liberal groups in the entire world. They were criticized for being so liberal by conservatives across the globe. Is that true today?

Republicans today include the Democrats who left the Democratic Party so that they could maintain segregation forever. That's right , they left the Democratic Party because they couldn't stand the idea of treating Blacks as equals. They found a welcoming home in the GOP. What the party did over 100 years ago says nothing about what they are today. I don't judge them for what happened 50 years ago either. I judge them by what they're doing and saying today.

Obviously, I did not reconnect two days ago to continue my side of the artistic discussion with Bobby on the book we’re working on. I had a crash and lost a day to vertigo. Still not good today, and I must rest so that I can get out tomorrow to get some dental care and pay the rent. But I want to get my ideas out for Bobby’s response.

So, the original was a play which had a number of implications for the book, if the projects are to remain connected and not be completely different. For a variety of reasons, I wish the two to remain facets of the one project. Now a play has little description beyond general suggestions for staging and sets. Yet it is a profoundly visual experience when performed. The details are left the director and the stage manager [once these were one position], in the case of school plays, the functions remain one and are filled by the teacher. Moving the play to a book means both description and art create the setting. In effect the physical artifact of the book becomes the stage.

Now, if I keep the original age target of the play, the book becomes a children's novel-- I don't actually want to go that route. Remembering that the play was intended to be performed by fifth graders, but would be seen by groups as young as third graders, I can lower the intended age to roughly 9. This allows a format I feel is suitable to the material. After all, the stories are collected from many sources. The isolation imposed on slaves both by the nature of the system of exploitation and for defensive purposes [slaveholders wanted their “property” as ignorant as possible, therefore isolation was an active technique of suppression]. The effect of all this was to make the stories of TJ [Trickster John] to be local and very personalized.

To reflect this, I intended that the play use different characters for each story, rather than one actor being John throughout. Transferring the same idea to the book, makes for an odd hybrid. Imagine a picture book, but with much more text aimed at an older audience than usual for this format. In effect, I am still staging the play, you are then bringing it to life on the stage which is the pictures floating above the text. I don’t know any book like this. It’s a rather radical proposal as far as I know -- what do you think? Can do? Or am I way off on what is reasonable to ask of an artist?

Of course, an alternative is to use the format of a graphic novel. This has the advantage of making each story its own small volume. I find this alternative quite attractive too. I would be happy to tackle either challenge, both being new to me.

I wish you lived close by. We could wrangle these issues out more collaboratively. Think about it and let me know. Early planning and intent are so important as I proceed. As many authors have commented, the characters often take a story over and it goes where you did not intend, but that comes later. I still need a clear vision of what I want to accomplish and where I am going with a story to get it started. It may morph into something completely different, but that comes with the process. I still need a focus to begin the work.

Just think about the difference between a graphic novel and the picture book I suggested first. In the picture book, I write a book which stands entirely on its own, even without illustration. I feel the illustrations are vital, but theoretically, the written work could stand alone. In a graphic novel, I would write very differently, more like a play. Description fades and the “staging” becomes the illustrations. For me as author description fades out and dialogue dominates -- you know, this may be the better format after all. A graphic novel is, in effect, a play performed by the illustrated actors. I’m inclining in this direction.

Back to the painful issues of dealing with the problems of race and resentment. As I noted before, I see no real way to avoid the straight black vs. white aspect of this in a book. As a play it was easy. Whatever class was yours for that year was your pool from which the cast was to be drawn. Had I actually staged this particular play, every child would have tried out for whatever part he or she wished. When doing a play on the origins of Santa Claus [a curricular unit, of course, with historical trends and facts beginning with Saint Nicholas in Asia Minor], a role for God was included. No, I wasn’t preaching, God was needed to work the miracle to bring “”Santa” into reality. The point is that each child who wanted that God part tried out and the best actor won. Over the years I did the play I had at least one blue eyed, one black, and one female God.

This applies to TJ. I envisioned identifying slaves and slave owners, not by the color of their skin, but by sashes, black or white. This would allow each child to try out for whatever part appealed to them and also emphasize my intent to make the story a human, rather than a racial story Humans, Black and White, have been the oppressors and the resistors throughout history. Not nice, but factual. For example, coastal tribes of Africans happily enslaved and sold their interior neighbors. Even the American slave trade, when viewed globally, was exploited for profit by both Whites and Blacks. A truth which we might work into the story, but which would be a minor point, as I know of no stories of TJ which relate to the African end of the slave trade and I want to be true to the slaves who told his stories by not inventing tales, only repeating and retelling those which they actually shared in the antebellum South.

Silly ideas like drawing in the sashes on kids drawn as actors in a play occur to me, but I feel they would simply not work. I toss it out in the spirit of the brainstorming technique in which even bad ideas can stimulate good ones in response. I can’t see injecting some nice Whites into the story. Slaves on a plantation did not experience nice whites and even many abolitionists believed that Blacks were inferior [read Frederick Douglas on Lincoln for insight into this problem]. I can’t imagine original TJ stories including nice Whites [except for the plantation children. It is an odd, but very real phenomenon which is reflected in American literature that slaves and the children of the masters sometimes formed a mutual bond. Both were harshly disciplined -- harsh for the kids, horrible for the slaves -- and were subject to the whims of the adult masters. Of course, this faded as the white children grew into slave masters themselves. Some of this is reflected in the Uncle Remus tales.] I fear the only sympathetic White characters we can allow would be the children. I know of at least one original tale in which Ol Massa’s son is kind and friendly to TJ.

Then there is the problem of writing this as a comic story for kids. The humor was original to the slave folklore, but every slave knew the horrors of slavery. That didn’t need to be detailed. It was as natural as assuming that the character breathed air and lived on land. We, however, must make it clear that slavery was horrible, yet not give our young readers nightmares. Some ideas to this end might be in the background of illustrations. A Black mother who looks at Ol Massa, Ol Miss, or another authority figure with an instinctive fear for her small child. Clutching the child in an unthinking attempt to hide it from the threat? Something you don’t notice the first time you read the story, but which becomes obvious when you look for it?

Of course, the rich, fancy clothes worn by the masters against the rags worn by the slaves tells much of the reality too.


As I have been writing it occurs to me that the graphic novel format would also allow us to keep the target age are 10-12. A real advantage in many ways. Have you discovered the Mushishi series? Both in the graphic novel and the animated versions, a great set of stories, beautifully illustrated. I loved it as animation as it makes real the thinking and culture of a people who believe in spirits. Reading the novels, I found that the author was exploring exactly that. He was reflecting and examining the world as seen by an elderly relative of his. Wonderful!

I need some input from you on how you think the illustrations should be applied. Should they be a character essential to the story as in Mushsisi, Thomas Hardy’s novels, and John Ford’s westerns? The South certainly could add to the story -- Magnolia’s and huge oaks draped with Spanish moss... you can see it in your mind. Or is it better to go to the opposite extreme and make the background fade into minor detail? Not being the one responsible for the labor of doing the drawing, I am inclined to a rich, detailed, vigorous role for the settings. However, I am also picturing a sort of Mushishi style drawing. More pencil sketch, but detailed, than painting or watercolor. Or like the animated Mushishsi, lots of color with the same feel...

And should TJ be one character as normal story telling requires? Or should he change form story to story as happened since this was real folklore. He didn’t even have one name, being crated fresh within every group of slaves who told his tales.

Well, lots ideas here. I was thinking out loud in this entry, so forgive my chaotic style. I am very anxious to have your response. This project is really exciting me. I believe this can be a great work for both of us. That does not mean it will ever be published. I have no faith in the wisdom of publishers. Remember that Geisell, aka, Dr. Seuss, was rejected by almost 30 publishers before he found someone who thought his work was worth taking the financial risk of publishing it. Publishers also prefer to buy an author’s work, then add the illustrator they like or vice versa. Well, what happens happens. Getting published is a surprising extra for me. I am enjoying this already. The creation is what matters. As for the rest? Que serra, serra.

http://www.animecastle.com/c-23191-mushishi-graphic-novels.aspx
http://www.google.com/search?q=mushishi+episode+1&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

Post for Bobby, but interesting to all [maybe]:

About our Trickster John project -- I have no current title so TJ will do. To repeat what we discussed in person: Years ago I wrote a play for 5th or 6th grade. It was intended as the core of a curricular unit on slavery. I have always been interested in folklore , and when I took a course on the subject I learned that much of what I had loved was fakelore, usually invented by corporations to support their destructive habits and predatory ways. [ex: John Bunyon was created by logging companies to justify the rape of our natural resources. Only one actual folk tale featuring him could be found, and it was derivative and pornographic.]

Research into slave tales collected by ethnographers from those who had actually suffered under the South’s Noble Cause revealed a large collection of stories in the trickster mode. Most, if not all, societies have these tales. They range from Jack in the Germanic/English tradition; to Coyote or Raven in the Americas; to Anansi, who, Wikipedia informs me, is of West African origin. Torn from their native lands and cultures and forced into artificial groupings by the plantation system, the new Americans kept their old culture as alive as they could. One way was to turn old folk tales into new versions which reflected the horrors of captivity.

We all know of Brer Rabbit. Joel Chandler Harris’ character was based on actual slave tales, but Harris could not avoid racist assumptions, including a sense of Black inferiority. The tales of the character I prefer, sometimes called John, often called by many other names, were more edgy and often aimed at belittling and insulting Ol Massa and Ol Miss and other White authority figures. If Harris was told of these tales [and that is very unlikely], he was either incapable of or unwilling to repeat stories which suggested that the slaves could outsmart their White oppressors and strike back with demeaning stories about how smart a slave could be and how gullible a master often was. Think Hogan's Heroes with a sharp cutting edge.

I’ll do the re-write, unfortunately I haven’t yet found the play. I may have to start from scratch. You do the drawings. Which brings me to the purpose of this entry. I have asked you to join me in this project and that makes us partners. Should this ever be sold, we will simply split any royalties. The only problem that might arrive is if we disagree on contract terms with a publisher. Since these tend to be standardized, I don’t expect a problem. I will hold the copyright on the words, you on the art.

So, if we are to be coworkers, cocreators? coartists? artistes? Who cares? If we are to work together, let’s agree that you have the absolute final word on art and I on wording. Still, we need to work together. I suggest that we freely accept mutual critiques, but never forget who commands which portion and therefore has the final say.

All the verbiage in the paragraph above is an excuse for me to step outside the boundaries of common sense and discuss the artwork with you. Since my drawing skills are at a third grade level at best, this is extremely presumptuous of me, but you don’t mind. Do you?

If you do, stop reading now! You have been warned!

Continuing to read past this point constitutes complete acceptance of the above terms and conditions; plus any others I can think of later.

It’s OK, you can trust me.

Honest. You really can.

Of course, thousands of children's books go out to publishers every year. The whole issue is dependent upon many factors beyond our control, but who knows? It might sell.

So, to get to the grit and grind: The story is potentially divisive. It could be read as an attack on Whites, rather than on the White Supremacists who actually committed the crimes of slavery. It could also make slavery look fun and amusing. Here lie Scylla and Charybdis. We must navigate carefully. The point of the story, from my point of view, is to communicate nothing about Blacks or Whites, but instead to convey the inherent dignity and sense of personal value natural to all humanity. Unfortunately, slavery, which started largely nonracial, became purely racial as time wore on. While a form of white slavery found in bonded servants [one which reflected the biblical requirement that slaves eventually be freed], and slavery involving Amerinds faded, the Black/White version persisted and still haunts us today.

So why even go there? Because the issue is real and must be faced. I love both German and Japanese culture. Yet I feel the Germans have truly repented of the horrors their ancestors perpetrated in WW II, and made what repentance can be made, out of a genuine sense of contrition. A few [very few] Jews have actually emigrated back to their ancestral homes in Germany.

But, as much as I love Japan and her people, Japanese politics are still dominated by secret and powerful right wing groups which feel no remorse for the war or the atrocities committed during it. The issue is very complex, with most young Japanese as blissfully unaware of their past as most young Americans are of slavery [well, nonBlack young Americans anyway]. There are also many Japanese who are aware and wish to make appropriate acts of contrition and reconciliation with the world. For this, I hold Japan accountable. Not because they were worse than the Nazis, but because the nation remains sharply divided over the issue with many believing to this day that Japan was forced to go to war by United States’ aggression!

I see in Japan much of what I see in America. We need to face the horrors of slavery and make sincere acts of condition and reconciliation. We are better about it now than we were when I was child. I still recall the textbooks in school when Dad was stationed in Biloxi, Mississippi. They showed happy slaves who were well treated and benefited greatly from the benign rule of their masters. As I recall, the point was actually made that they were better off here than in Africa. God, it was sickening! Even at that age I knew it was a horrible lie.

Still, we have hardly faced our ugly past as well as the Germans have faced theirs. Worse, they have done so in only 60 years. We have had since 1865 to do so. I love my country too much to ignore this oversight. Curricula no longer justify slavery. Many teachers do fine units on the subject which are entirely fair and honest [within the context of the tender age of the children being taught. There are limits to what can be told to a child.] I recall a school wide project at Westside in which “slaves” escaped and were hunted by “slave catchers” It was fun, yes, but no one pretended that in real life there had been any joy in it for the escapees. Man, I have to pause and say, I had a fine staff back in those days. Genuinely great teachers who cared and made a real difference. I miss working with such people. That’s why I want to work with you on this.

My point is, great teaching notwithstanding, as a society we look a lot like Japan. Some of us, of all races, have and will continue to deal with the ugly past. Others, like the Texas Board of Education, want to rewrite history and make it clear that slavery was a minor and forgettable blip in American perfection and holiness. This work is, to me, a statement of man’s struggle for freedom and dignity under any conditions and a reaffirmation of the need for redemption.

How’s that for an inflated sense of self importance? I work at it.

Before I got deflected into all the verbiage above, I was going to talk about details. This is already too long for a blog entry, so I’ll make a second one later today for those details.