-  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 on the first 19 paragraphs of Wilentz. Compare it to Hannah-Jones.
- 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.
The OpenLab at City Tech:A place to learn, work, and share
The OpenLab is an open-source, digital platform designed to support teaching and learning at City Tech (New York City College of Technology), and to promote student and faculty engagement in the intellectual and social life of the college community.
top
3)
After reading Hannah-Jone’s views on slavery in âThe 1619 Projectâ, and expanding my knowledge of other writersâ views by reading Wilentzâ, â American Slavery and the Relentless Unforeseenâ I was able to see both sides main points. Wilentz makes a point that it was not Inevitable that slavery would be abolished. He made it clear that it was a great fight between abolitionists and antiabolitionists due to their differing views to reach an end of slavery. He doesnât go into the struggles of slaves in America but he discusses the trials and tribulation that people went through to make a change in America. It was not only slaves or freed slaves that fought for the rights of African Americans, but it was also a human effort that sought for dramatic change. In Hannah Jones’s writing, she makes it seem as though the origins of America were completely bad when it came to the treatment of African Americans. She doesnât see the shade of gray within it all. Wilentz makes a point that America had a turning point within the 1740s and the 1750s. This was known as the anti-slavery movement. Within this period America got to basically âlook at themselves in the mirrorâ, they got to see the monster that they had become from the dehumanization of people based on race. It was an awakening for some of humanity to see the evil that was within the ideals of slavery.
The fight for the abolishment of slavery was not planned, it came quite abruptly. The power that slavery had, began to weaken and seventeen years down the line of this movement, the ideals of slavery began to lose it’s significant and change for African Americans began to slowly take effect. Wilentz states, âthe neglect of historical understanding of the anti-slavery impulse, especially in its early decades, alters how we view not just our nationâs history but the nation itselfâ. This is significant because it made me think of the views that Hannah Jones presented within her essay. Although Hannah Jones and Sean Wilentz have never experienced the acts of slavery first hand, they both have great knowledge on the topic. I believe that Wilentz gives a more neutral statement on the topic in comparison to Hannah Jones. In a way, Hannah Jones paints America as the âevil supervillainâ in the story of African Americans. The people that wrote the constitution may have failed to include African Americans but people have worked remarkably hard to make up for the wrongs that have been emplaced. Various amendments have been improved in ways that now represent the once silenced voices.
Excellent overview. It’s possible to build a historical context of the world around us and though both Hannah-Jones and Wilentz have an important point of view, it is slightly different to look at history from the point of view of “relentless unforeseen.”
Today as well we are making history, and we do not know how it will turn out.
This is a valuable perspective in academia and in life. It does however require some “book learning.” Otherwise, how will we know what happened in the past? How will we evaluate differing versions of history?
History is a narrative too. And yes Hannah-Jones is 100% right to bring front and center the action and agency of African Americans in the ongoing history of the United States of A.
3).After reading and observing Hannah-Joneâs views on slavery in âThe 1619 Projectâ, it has expanded my knowledge of other writersâ views by reading Wilentzâ, â American Slavery and the Relentless Unforeseenâ I was able to see both sides main points. Wilentz makes a point that it was not Inevitable that slavery would be abolished. It is clear that it was a great fight between abolitionists and antiabolitionists due to their differing views to reach an end of slavery. He didn’t extend into the struggles that the slaves in America had to face, but he discusses the trials and tribulation that people went through to make a change in America. Not only slaves or freed slaves fought for the rights of African Americans, but it was also a human effort that sought for dramatic change. According to Hannah Jonesâs writing, she made it seem as the origins of America were completely bad when it came to the treatment of African Americans. She doesnât see the shade of gray within it all. Whereas, Wilentz makes a clear point that America within the 1740s and the 1750s had a turning point. This was known as the anti slavery movement. During, this period America, basically âlook at themselves in the mirrorâ, they got to see the monster that they had become from the dehumanization of people based on race.
4.The fight for the abolishment of slavery was not planned, it came quite abruptly. Slavery had power and it began to weaken, seventeen years down the line of this movement, the ideals of slavery began to lose itâs significant and change for African Americans began to slowly take effect. Wilentz in his writing speaks, âthe neglect of historical understanding of the anti-slavery impulse, especially in its early decades, alters how we view not just our nationâs history but the nation itselfâ. This is eye catching because it makes you look and think of the different views that Hannah Jones presented within her essay. Although Hannah Jones and Wilentz have never experienced the acts of slavery first hand, they both had great knowledge on the topic. I believe that Wilentz gives a more of a basic statement on the topic in comparison to Hannah Jones. In a way, Hannah Jones describes America as the âevil supervillainâ in the story of African Americans. People that wrote the constitution may have failed to include African Americans but people have worked remarkably hard to make up for the wrongs that have been emplaced. Many of the amendments have been improved in ways.
In the article âAmerican Slavery-and-âthe Relentless Unforeseenâ, by Sean Wilentzâs view on slavery is very different from Hannah Jonesâs article â 1619 Projectâ. Jonesâs view was based on the negativity of Americaâs mistreatment of African Americans presenting a nation that is corrupted with power. Wilentzâs view, however, shows the gray factor to Jonesâs black and white perception of slave history. Wilentz makes a point that slavery was not inevitable, he does point out that slavery did end abruptly due to the efforts of the progress from the battles between abolitionists and antiabolitionists. Many people like Freddrick Douglass and John Brown fought for their beliefs in a better world. Wilentz emphasizes that America did come with baggage and was at fault for the torment of African Americans. While Jones emphasizes that America was nothing but an enemy, in her article it summarizes the pain and torture that African Americans face and shadows the efforts, many took to abolish slavery. Throughout slave history, many view the underground railroad as a success and it was. Everyone would see how Harriet Tubman took slaves and brought them to freedom. However, many would forget the people that fought to help slaves run away from their masters to have freedom.
Hannah Jones makes a point that America is unjust for including slavery under the constitution and using slaves as a token of power. Jones also left out the people that would fight from the abolishment of slavery. Throughout the 1740s and 1750s, it took America to realize the foundation of corruption they stood upon. The nation that based itself on freedom, took freedom away from those that are different racially. The abolishment of slavery was not predetermined but however, was necessary for the growth of America. Wilentzâs statement âBecause the ideals that propelled the American Revolution shared crucial origins with the ideals that propelled antislavery, it can be tempting to treat slavery as a terrible appendage to American history, an important but also doomed institution at the nationâs foundingâ. This is reminiscent of Hannah Jonesâs view of slavery is nothing but a cruel thing. However, neither author could say that they experience slavery but both come from their own background on the matter. Wilentz presents an understanding of both sides of history while Hannah Jones takes it more personally. Both authors have a point in the matter and both make strong arguments but in the end, someone can see things differently.
In the article âAmerican Slavery-and-âthe Relentless Unforeseenâ, by Sean Wilentzâs view on slavery is very different from Hannah Jonesâs article â 1619 Projectâ. Jonesâs view was based on the negativity of Americaâs mistreatment of African Americans presenting a nation that is corrupted with power. Wilentzâs view, however, shows the gray factor to Jonesâs black and white perception of slave history. Wilentz makes a point that slavery was not inevitable, he does point out that slavery did end abruptly due to the efforts of the progress from the battles between abolitionists and antiabolitionists. Many people like Freddrick Douglass and John Brown fought for their beliefs in a better world. Wilentz emphasizes that America did come with baggage and was at fault for the torment of African Americans. While Jones emphasizes that America was nothing but an enemy, in her article it summarizes the pain and torture that African Americans face and shadows the efforts, many took to abolish slavery. Throughout slave history, many view the underground railroad as a success and it was. Everyone would see how Harriet Tubman took slaves and brought them to freedom. However, many would forget the people that fought to help slaves run away from their masters to have freedom.
Hannah Jones makes a point that America is unjust for including slavery under the constitution and using slaves as a token of power. Jones also left out the people that would fight from the abolishment of slavery. Throughout the 1740s and 1750s, it took America to realize the foundation of corruption they stood upon. The nation that based itself on freedom, took freedom away from those that are different racially. The abolishment of slavery was not predetermined but however, was necessary for the growth of America. Wilentzâs statement âBecause the ideals that propelled the American Revolution shared crucial origins with the ideals that propelled antislavery, it can be tempting to treat slavery as a terrible appendage to American history, an important but also doomed institution at the nationâs foundingâ. This is reminiscent of Hannah Jonesâs view of slavery is nothing but a cruel thing. However, neither author could say that they experience slavery but both come from their own background on the matter. Wilentz presents an understanding of both sides of history while Hannah Jones takes it more personally. Both authors have a point in the matter and both make strong arguments but in the end, someone can see things differently.
I don’t agree with Hannah Jone’s view about American starting slavery but its a topic where different opinions will come in. I do agree with the idea that Africa Americans have been fighting for their freedom even until today. Hannah Jones believes the way slaves were being treated isn’t a way you treat humans. According to Wilentz slavery seem to happen and it wasn’t easy to stop if they depended on their labor work for the economy, there was no way white slave owners were going to give that up. When Wilentz says ârelentless unforeseenâ is we are not taught about the people who were antislavery and fought for the slave’s freedom. As said in the article â in the American colonies as well as in Britain and France, a significant number of reformers and intellectuals had come to regard American slavery as pure evil.âThis idea doesn’t agree with Hannah jones because she felt this country did nothing to stop slavery. When we look back at history, we see what people want us to see and believe every word because we weren’t there to experience it. It’s very different for the people who experience it themself because they were able to see what was happening. It’s very hard to believe the history of America because they always tell us good things about this country, not what this country has done. For example, when the Native American was here first and a lot of them were assassinated, we don’t always get the full story. Hannah Jones talks about Isaac Woodard after serving the army for four years was coming home on the bus to meet his wife where he got into an argument with the white bus driver, asking him if he could use the restroom. After the bus driver told him to get off, where he saw that police officers were waiting for him. â before he could speak, one of the officers struck him in the head with a billy club, beating him so badly that he fell unconscious.â The beating was so bad that he woke up the next day that at the age of 26 he wasn’t able to see again. Hannah Jones believed the innocence with Woodard wasn’t unusual, â it was part of a wave of systemic violence deployed against black Americans after reconstruction, in both the north and south.â White Americans saw black men wearing the uniform of Americaâs armed services as a threat by giving them some type of pride in being in the army. White Americans seeing black men in uniform scared them because they didn’t want them to be treated the same. â hundreds of black veterans were beaten, maimed, shot, and lynched.” Hannah Jones states this was used to control and terrify black people but this isn’t how you treat a human. The main difference between Hannah Jones and Wilentz is Hannah has hate towards this country because of the way they treated people of her kind and was always forced to learn the history of this country when they didnât respect hers. Wilentz was to inform us of the people who did want to make a difference with slavery and how everybody wasn’t evil.
The abolition of slavery was not inevitable according to Wilentz. Yes, there were a vast majority that didnât fancy slavery, but there was no denying that it was still prevalent. Had the movement for abolition been inevitable then so many people wouldnât have fought for it. There wouldnât have been slaves trying their best to escape their situation and fight for citizenship, abolitionists, and several protests. Without the endless struggle people regardless of race, then it would have been impossible for the abolition of slavery.
Going back to Hannah-Jones and her views of slavery in the âThe 1619 Projectâ, she brings up a point about Abraham Lincoln. That Abraham Lincoln actually didnât hold fondness for the African American population, specifically slaves. Even though Lincoln may have used them in the war and won, that didnât mean he had anything positive to say about them. Cheyenne T., who reviews Hannah-Jones argument also reflects on Hannah-Jones statement towards Abraham Lincoln. â… [Abraham Lincoln] He believed that free black people were a ââtroublesome presenceââ incompatible with a democracy intended only for white people.â (Hannah-Jones). Using this information to go back to Wilentz argument that abolition of slavery is not inevitable, then this can be supporting evidence.
Abraham Lincoln could have easily allowed slavery to persist and it would make sense. Abraham Lincoln was known not to have a fondness towards African Americans, so it wasnât likely that abolition of slavery would naturally occur. However, there was so much going on at the time. There was a war going on in the country and in order to win Abraham Lincoln needed them, as much as he hated it. Although, there was one major problem. A problem of what will happen if we free them?
Society has lived with slaves for years and its not like all the teachings of slavery would be gone with a snap of fingers. There had to be work done. This work would be implementing the African Americans in society, which is a task easier said than done. The fact of the matter is that abolition was not inevitable due to the numerous issues politically and socially that made it difficult to consider slaves as equals,or future equals.