Being an abolitionist in half the country was virtue signalling
That may be true, but those today that totally would have stood up against all the injustice don't think about it that way. They think of themselves of the white knights that would have freed the slaves against all odds.
That's why the thought experiment still makes sense. It's meant to humble the egos of these people (and ourselves of course), make them question their perceived virtue. It's something people need to be reminded of very regularily. Most of us wouldn't stand up, neither today nor yesterday, against what we feel is unjust, if our whole livelihood could be destroyed in the process.
Hell, a lot of us wouldn't even feel something is unjust if we weren't told it is.
It's the same with those people who think everyone in World War II should have fought the Nazis and saved the Jews. You don't see them trying to free prisoners in China, North Korea, or even from those immigrant detention centers in the US.
But sure, everyone who didn't hide Jews in their attic and storm Auschwitz with a hunting rifle tacitly endorsed Nazis!
I can't help but pick at it though, being the contrarian that I sometimes tend to be.
If I lived in the American South in the 1800's, in what sense would I be me? I am a product of my genetics but also a product of the society I was born into and the people who raised me. I don't know the first thing about who this hypothetical alternate Dixie Fool would have been, so it's hard to meaningfully make any judgements about them.
The closest I could really state is that, if I imagine someone kind of like me on a very vague level, born into the south in that time in remotely comparable circumstances to mine, then I would not be surprised to find that such a person would have little real opinion on the matter at all and very much not be in a position to develop one to any meaningful degree. The question would not be particularly relevant to that person, I think.
Given the part of family I consider my primary heritage wasn’t even in the US until half way through the century, I’d say: didn’t apply, probably given the sentiment among that demographic, fought for the fucking Union, and doesn’t matter; slavery illegal.
This question can only ever apply to those people whose family were in the US before 1863, which I’m guessing is a minority of the country. Even among my family that got here in 1846, they were a pretty insular community that tended to only marry and interact with people that went to their church until the early-mid 1900s, none of which owned slaves and came from a country where it was already outlawed. Saying a person would’ve been ostracized for being opposing slavery assumes the prof knows about the community they come from and the students’ family history. To quote the ctrl-left, “that’s ignorant”
That may be true, but those today that totally would have stood up against all the injustice don't think about it that way. They think of themselves of the white knights that would have freed the slaves against all odds.
That's why the thought experiment still makes sense. It's meant to humble the egos of these people (and ourselves of course), make them question their perceived virtue. It's something people need to be reminded of very regularily. Most of us wouldn't stand up, neither today nor yesterday, against what we feel is unjust, if our whole livelihood could be destroyed in the process.
Hell, a lot of us wouldn't even feel something is unjust if we weren't told it is.
My indian part was fighting to keep his slaves, and my irish part died for the union.
It's the same with those people who think everyone in World War II should have fought the Nazis and saved the Jews. You don't see them trying to free prisoners in China, North Korea, or even from those immigrant detention centers in the US.
But sure, everyone who didn't hide Jews in their attic and storm Auschwitz with a hunting rifle tacitly endorsed Nazis!
Yes, but I would have also likely opposed slavery for the same reason I oppose immigration. It devalues labor.
Based on this Professor's reasoning all us here would have been the non-racists
Interesting thought experiment.
I can't help but pick at it though, being the contrarian that I sometimes tend to be.
If I lived in the American South in the 1800's, in what sense would I be me? I am a product of my genetics but also a product of the society I was born into and the people who raised me. I don't know the first thing about who this hypothetical alternate Dixie Fool would have been, so it's hard to meaningfully make any judgements about them.
The closest I could really state is that, if I imagine someone kind of like me on a very vague level, born into the south in that time in remotely comparable circumstances to mine, then I would not be surprised to find that such a person would have little real opinion on the matter at all and very much not be in a position to develop one to any meaningful degree. The question would not be particularly relevant to that person, I think.
Either way though, it wouldn't be me.
Given the part of family I consider my primary heritage wasn’t even in the US until half way through the century, I’d say: didn’t apply, probably given the sentiment among that demographic, fought for the fucking Union, and doesn’t matter; slavery illegal.
This question can only ever apply to those people whose family were in the US before 1863, which I’m guessing is a minority of the country. Even among my family that got here in 1846, they were a pretty insular community that tended to only marry and interact with people that went to their church until the early-mid 1900s, none of which owned slaves and came from a country where it was already outlawed. Saying a person would’ve been ostracized for being opposing slavery assumes the prof knows about the community they come from and the students’ family history. To quote the ctrl-left, “that’s ignorant”
Actually racist? Proably not but my dislike of people in general likely would've lead people to believe so.