,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Most people can see the obvious problems with this, but worth noting that insidious thing here is that in defining Hemings etc. as "slaves who agreed to be slaves" (or more Freudenly as "salves") goal is to shift moral onus from slave-owners to enslaved.
2. Hanson is saying that if we think of Hemings as someone who "made deals w/Jefferson" it would "lower moral culpability." but in fact it merely shifts moral culpability: Jefferson is partly exonerated & Hemings is more guilty (of making deal to be enslaved.)
3. Many have properly pointed out the absurdity of thinking there was any sort of non-coerced "deal" between a child enslaved at birth and the wealthy Founding father who owned her & her family. There's also Hanson's striking ignorance of how historians grapple with agency
4. A lot of the most productive work on slavery since WWII has grappled with slavery: with trying to see how even within an oppressive system the enslaved resisted, not just in rebellion but other means (slow working, flight, culture).
5. But the tradition of emphasizing slave agency (which really goes back to WEB Du Bois & runs through Leslie Owens & Gutman) never talks about slaves choosing their status -- it's all about resistance within the system not Hanson's individualistic model of deal making.
