Given the long tragic history of racism in the United States, slavery was not really taught as a topic in American history until the 1960s and 1970s.  Given the painfully extensive racism that afflicts American society today, there are still people who think slavery should be omitted because it is somehow less important than other subjects.  They think those other subjects can be separated from the history of slavery.

In 1975 a pioneering book was published with the pithy title American Slavery, American Freedom.  It was written in the spirit of confronting slavery as a way to end racism, instead of omitting slavery as a way to continue racism.  Ever since this book the intertwined relationship between freedom and slavery has been considered by non-racist education a central paradox of American history.  Given the centrality of slavery to American life for two hundred years, half before and half after the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, it is impossible (if one is not a racist) for an American to separate the concept of freedom from the concept of slavery.  (I say “for an American” because other countries have their own ugly histories of racism and unfreedom.)  The so-called “Founding Fathers” formulated and articulated notions of “freedom” even as they were committed to slavery.  How does one explain that awful contradiction?  This is exactly one of many reasons why we must study the time period before 1776, because the “Founding Fathers” were unable to change central elements of colonial life -- and we have inherited the legacy of both their successes as well as their failures.  What the “Founding Fathers” were unable to do, subsequent generations have had to do.  Indeed, much still remains for my generation and for your generation to do.

1.  So, what did/does “freedom” mean when a significant portion of people in one’s society was unfree?




2.  How is it possible for “freedom” to be only partial?  If some people are not free, doesn’t that mean that the principle of “freedom” is not truly safe, but can be taken away from even more people simply through the exertion of power, because the principle of “freedom” is hollow?  Doesn’t that turn “freedom” into just a prettified word for inequality? (In other words, how do we turn “freedom” into real “freedom”?)




3. In other words, can you fight for your own “rights” without at the same time fighting for the “rights” of others?  Otherwise, isn’t “rights” just another prettified word for privileges? (In other words, how do we turn “rights” into real “rights”?)