Burrhus
07-26-2007, 12:25 AM
BY PROF. RAY GOODWIN
Bias, of course, is a predisposition or prejudice and is inherent in every one of us because we are human. Our biases are predicated on many factors, including age, religion, sex, upbringing etc. These things will color perceptions; yet it is possible to strive to minimize bias.
Many doctors still take a form of the Hippocratic oath. Historians should take a similar oath—a personal oath to rid themselves, as thoroughly as they can, of any bias when they write a history text or paper, when they give lectures, when they teach.
The textbook I was assigned to use at Victoria College was written by a Pulitzer prizewinner named Irwin Unger. Mr. Unger is a product of New York’s educational system; and I am sure there are some highly qualified and fine universities in New York. But Mr. Unger’s biases certainly came through in that textbook—a definite geographical bias and possibly a racial one. Both had a bearing on his interpretation of the misnamed “civil war,” and both biases have played a part in today’s prevailing outlook on race and the civil rights movement.
There are dozens of examples of bias in today’s texts and classroom instruction, certainly not limited to those cited herein. And to be honest, I doubt I could write a history of the War Between the States without my own Southern bias being evident. That comes from my belief that truth and justice lie in that direction, of course.
I found myself clashing with Unger’s book, greatly. Actually that was a good thing—because I was able to give my students a different perspective.
I would like to cite some textbook examples. Example No. 1 out of the Unger textbook is the Nat Turner slave rebellion, which took place in Southampton County, Virginia in August of 1831.
Turner said he was called on by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. And the Holy Spirit, he said, told him to kill all whites. So he told his followers to do just that, and to spare no one. Joseph Travis was the owner of Nat Turner at the time this took place. (He was Turner’s third
owner—and a very kind man.)
At 2 a.m on August 21, 1831, Turner and three others entered the Travis home and killed all five members of that family. Travis and his wife were hacked to death with an axe, and their infant son stabbed to death in his cradle. Thus began an orgy of murder over the next few days that would terrify all Southern whites.
Turner and his fellow murderers went down the road on an extended killing spree, and more and more followers joined them, the group eventually reaching more than a hundred. As Turner and his band went from farm to farm slaughtering unsuspecting whites, children were the group that suffered the most casualties and arguably the most brutal deaths.
Probably the worst aspect of that whole slave rebellion happened the next day, Tuesday, August 22, 1831. Turner and many of his henchmen came upon a school. There were 11 children there—the oldest being 11 years old. The butchers proceeded to murder the teacher in front of the children and then took those children, beheaded them; stacked their bodies in front of the schoolhouse; and tossed their heads back into the schoolroom. One little girl survived by hiding in the chimney. Whites killed in the grisly rebellion included 25 children, 18 women and 14 men.
Word got back to the Virginia authorities, and the militia went after the killers and finally caught up with them.
Of course, they saw the carnage along the way. Imagine what the sight of those abused bodies did to those men. Turner’s followers were soon captured, but it took about six weeks or so to finally catch Turner himself. He hid out well.
The local authorities put him on trial and executed him. Someone skinned his body afterward as an example to any who might attempt another such massacre. That in essence was the Nat Turner slave rebellion. The state of Virginia executed 55 of his followers.
Many more were sentenced to some form of banishment. A few were acquitted. The state reimbursed the slaveholders for their lost slaves.
In the hysterical climate that followed the rebellion, close to 200 blacks, many of whom had nothing to do with it, were murdered by white mobs. Slaves as far away as North Carolina were accused of having a connection with the insurrection and were tried and executed. Thus Turner’s action caused the immeasurable suffering of his own people. This fact is always ignored, of course.
Virginia considered abolishing slavery, but instead chose to adopt a suppressive and restrictive policy against black people, both slave and free. Because of the actions of Turner, educating slaves was outlawed.
If there were a modern-day parallel to Turner and his followers, probably the closest thing would be the Charles Manson family or any of numerous other serial killers.
How does Mr. Irwin Unger present the affair in his textbook? Unger writes (352): “Turner, a slave foreman and preacher inspired by the Bible, decided to strike a blow for freedom.” Note the use of the phrase, “inspired by the Bible.” I mean, who could argue with that? I have no idea what “Bible” Mr. Unger was referring to, but the ones I have read say something about “Thou shalt not kill.” And “decided to strike a blow for freedom”? When an 18- or 19-year-old student reads such words, he or she automatically thinks: “This was a good guy just trying to help his oppressed people; this is some sort of hero.”
Unger never mentioned the slaughter. Unger never mentions the methods of slaughter, did not use the word “murder” and also neglects to tell his readers that 43 of the victims were women and children.
He said that the actions of Turner were directed against “not a particularly brutal master.” In actuality, Joseph Travis was a very kind master. Turner had been taught to read and write and was allowed to preach itinerantly. His owners completely trusted him. They gave him the run of the plantation.
Yet Unger writes, “not a particularly brutal master,” insinuating that Travis wasn’t, perhaps, quite as mean and cruel as the stereotypical fictional Southern slave owner who bullwhipped his slaves every morning, noon and night.
No, Nat Turner had it pretty good, all things considered. In the 1960s some black writers got angry about a novel (The Confessions of Nat Turner, by William Styron) published in 1967 about this Turner rebellion that was essentially what I just related to you. Those black “historians” said a white person couldn’t write an accurate history of the Turner rebellion—so they wrote their own book. In that book they made Turner a hero, a symbol of black power and social liberation. [Oddly enough, the novel Styron wrote, which so enraged the black writers, was largely sympathetic to Turner as a person, being opposed mainly to his actions.—Ed.]
Continued here with more on John Brown
http://www.barnesreview.org/html/july2007lead.html
Bias, of course, is a predisposition or prejudice and is inherent in every one of us because we are human. Our biases are predicated on many factors, including age, religion, sex, upbringing etc. These things will color perceptions; yet it is possible to strive to minimize bias.
Many doctors still take a form of the Hippocratic oath. Historians should take a similar oath—a personal oath to rid themselves, as thoroughly as they can, of any bias when they write a history text or paper, when they give lectures, when they teach.
The textbook I was assigned to use at Victoria College was written by a Pulitzer prizewinner named Irwin Unger. Mr. Unger is a product of New York’s educational system; and I am sure there are some highly qualified and fine universities in New York. But Mr. Unger’s biases certainly came through in that textbook—a definite geographical bias and possibly a racial one. Both had a bearing on his interpretation of the misnamed “civil war,” and both biases have played a part in today’s prevailing outlook on race and the civil rights movement.
There are dozens of examples of bias in today’s texts and classroom instruction, certainly not limited to those cited herein. And to be honest, I doubt I could write a history of the War Between the States without my own Southern bias being evident. That comes from my belief that truth and justice lie in that direction, of course.
I found myself clashing with Unger’s book, greatly. Actually that was a good thing—because I was able to give my students a different perspective.
I would like to cite some textbook examples. Example No. 1 out of the Unger textbook is the Nat Turner slave rebellion, which took place in Southampton County, Virginia in August of 1831.
Turner said he was called on by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. And the Holy Spirit, he said, told him to kill all whites. So he told his followers to do just that, and to spare no one. Joseph Travis was the owner of Nat Turner at the time this took place. (He was Turner’s third
owner—and a very kind man.)
At 2 a.m on August 21, 1831, Turner and three others entered the Travis home and killed all five members of that family. Travis and his wife were hacked to death with an axe, and their infant son stabbed to death in his cradle. Thus began an orgy of murder over the next few days that would terrify all Southern whites.
Turner and his fellow murderers went down the road on an extended killing spree, and more and more followers joined them, the group eventually reaching more than a hundred. As Turner and his band went from farm to farm slaughtering unsuspecting whites, children were the group that suffered the most casualties and arguably the most brutal deaths.
Probably the worst aspect of that whole slave rebellion happened the next day, Tuesday, August 22, 1831. Turner and many of his henchmen came upon a school. There were 11 children there—the oldest being 11 years old. The butchers proceeded to murder the teacher in front of the children and then took those children, beheaded them; stacked their bodies in front of the schoolhouse; and tossed their heads back into the schoolroom. One little girl survived by hiding in the chimney. Whites killed in the grisly rebellion included 25 children, 18 women and 14 men.
Word got back to the Virginia authorities, and the militia went after the killers and finally caught up with them.
Of course, they saw the carnage along the way. Imagine what the sight of those abused bodies did to those men. Turner’s followers were soon captured, but it took about six weeks or so to finally catch Turner himself. He hid out well.
The local authorities put him on trial and executed him. Someone skinned his body afterward as an example to any who might attempt another such massacre. That in essence was the Nat Turner slave rebellion. The state of Virginia executed 55 of his followers.
Many more were sentenced to some form of banishment. A few were acquitted. The state reimbursed the slaveholders for their lost slaves.
In the hysterical climate that followed the rebellion, close to 200 blacks, many of whom had nothing to do with it, were murdered by white mobs. Slaves as far away as North Carolina were accused of having a connection with the insurrection and were tried and executed. Thus Turner’s action caused the immeasurable suffering of his own people. This fact is always ignored, of course.
Virginia considered abolishing slavery, but instead chose to adopt a suppressive and restrictive policy against black people, both slave and free. Because of the actions of Turner, educating slaves was outlawed.
If there were a modern-day parallel to Turner and his followers, probably the closest thing would be the Charles Manson family or any of numerous other serial killers.
How does Mr. Irwin Unger present the affair in his textbook? Unger writes (352): “Turner, a slave foreman and preacher inspired by the Bible, decided to strike a blow for freedom.” Note the use of the phrase, “inspired by the Bible.” I mean, who could argue with that? I have no idea what “Bible” Mr. Unger was referring to, but the ones I have read say something about “Thou shalt not kill.” And “decided to strike a blow for freedom”? When an 18- or 19-year-old student reads such words, he or she automatically thinks: “This was a good guy just trying to help his oppressed people; this is some sort of hero.”
Unger never mentioned the slaughter. Unger never mentions the methods of slaughter, did not use the word “murder” and also neglects to tell his readers that 43 of the victims were women and children.
He said that the actions of Turner were directed against “not a particularly brutal master.” In actuality, Joseph Travis was a very kind master. Turner had been taught to read and write and was allowed to preach itinerantly. His owners completely trusted him. They gave him the run of the plantation.
Yet Unger writes, “not a particularly brutal master,” insinuating that Travis wasn’t, perhaps, quite as mean and cruel as the stereotypical fictional Southern slave owner who bullwhipped his slaves every morning, noon and night.
No, Nat Turner had it pretty good, all things considered. In the 1960s some black writers got angry about a novel (The Confessions of Nat Turner, by William Styron) published in 1967 about this Turner rebellion that was essentially what I just related to you. Those black “historians” said a white person couldn’t write an accurate history of the Turner rebellion—so they wrote their own book. In that book they made Turner a hero, a symbol of black power and social liberation. [Oddly enough, the novel Styron wrote, which so enraged the black writers, was largely sympathetic to Turner as a person, being opposed mainly to his actions.—Ed.]
Continued here with more on John Brown
http://www.barnesreview.org/html/july2007lead.html