Oregon started off as a haven for racists

[Eschaton]

Found this fascinating :


http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

Even before it was a state, those in power in Oregon were trying to keep out non-white people. In the summer of 1844, for example, the Legislative Committee passed a provision that said any free black people who were in the state would be subject to flogging if they didn't leave within two years. The floggings were supposed to continue every six months until they left the territory. That provision was revised in December of 1845 to removed the flogging part. Instead, free black people who remained would be offered up "publicly for hire" to any white person who would remove them from the territory.

[Stocky]

Shouldn't be ashamed of a past you had no control over. Not saying I condone this at all, but we're way past the point where the current generation needs to apologize for the actions of an earlier one.

[jakefromstatefarm]

sohh

this:

And it truly isn't meant to pick on Oregon as a lone destination of warped quasi-utopian intolerance. But as Imarisha said, they bothered to write it down.

was the point of the article. It's not that everything you knew about Oregon is wrong (well it sort of is), it's that institutional racism is an ingrained part of American culture, even in the areas that are perceived to be the most liberal. I thought the piece was at its best when it was exploring the understanding of racism by certain American groups as an exclusively 'other' (read: Southern) phenomenon, but I'm not sure if that's how it's been received.

[Himu]

When I was a kid we were taught that the Alamo should never be forgotten and that we should be happy that Texas won their revolution just so they could enslave my ancestors. Being told by your teacher that your people are not as valuable as good old Texan freedom is some fucked up shit. same shit, different state.

[TVC15]

Probably about 2/3rds of the states were originally created to be racist havens.

[Himu]

Shouldn't be ashamed of a past you had no control over. Not saying I condone this at all, but we're way past the point where the current generation needs to apologize for the actions of an earlier one.

I'll take shame over pride for your history when your history is fucked up (I.e. Texas pride)

[jakefromstatefarm]

when your history is fucked up

lesbihonest, this is everyone

[Himu]

when your history is fucked up

lesbihonest, this is everyone

That doesn't really change anything I said, either. Nor did I say history in general isn't fucked up.

[/r/neofeg]

http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5   

[Phoenix Dark]

America was built on institutional racism and white supremacy. I don't think anyone alive today has to apologize for shit that happened hundreds of years ago (or 50 years ago) but I can't fux with you if you don't at least acknowledge it, and the long term implications/impact on our society today.

[Phoenix Dark]

You've got to be a special type of dumbass to still argue the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.

[jakefromstatefarm]

That doesn't really change anything I said, either. Nor did I say history in general isn't fucked up.

it might just be me, but there's an implication in your wording that 'some people's' (however we're defining that) history isn't fucked up or at least that certain group's history is more morally objectionable than others, but you're right, it doesn't change your point. Projecting moral standards into the past is, for the most, obstructive; in the case of slavery I think it's justifiable (if not inevitable) but when it's used to measure dicks between interest groups it's entirely tedious.

http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5   

nb, as far as American chattel slavery apologia goes. he's missing the bits about Irish slavery and welfare queen culture though.

[Himu]

When I was a kid we were taught that the Alamo should never be forgotten and that we should be happy that Texas won their revolution just so they could enslave my ancestors.

I'm guessing what you meant to say here is that you feel that your teachers / texts glossed over slavery and that you feel that it was somehow the primary motivation behind the revolution against Mexico. 

If your history teachers had expressed that it was, then they also did you a disservice, just as if they had ignored slavery entirely.  The abolition of slavery caused tensions; what actually caused revolt was Santa Anna.

There were a lot of reasons folks living in Mexico had grievances with Santa Anna and his centralists - he quite literally made himself the military dictator of Mexico, dissolving its legislature and abolishing its constitution, leading to armed revolts in multiple states in Mexico, with only Texas successfully winning independence.  It doesn't take any exaggeration or embellishment to make the man a bad guy.

No, multiple black students brought it up. She, in her own way, justified it. It was insulting. 'm not going to say people should be ashamed of their history, because we can't change anything and humans will always be humans. But if you're (universal you, not you as in Jaydub) not going to feel guilty - and no one should - I still don't think that excuses outright pride or justification of historically disgusting acts. But yes, many Texans gloss over this and show Texan revolution pride without fully understanding what the full implications are.

One of the biggest reminders of being a minority is that your narrative does not count. In Texas, no one is going to bring up the fact that Texas fought Mexico over their right to own slaves. Remember the Alamo, Jaydubya!!!

[Stocky]

If Hitler was their leader, people in the south would defend him. It's some fucked up shit down here.

[chronovore]

Cool, should we start a “Bleeding Kansas” thread, and a “UTAH: WTF?” one as well?

[Phoenix Dark]

Cool, should we start a “Bleeding Kansas” thread, and a “UTAH: WTF?” one as well?

This is our month, demon.

[Great Rumbler]

Cool, should we start a “Bleeding Kansas” thread, and a “UTAH: WTF?” one as well?

I, for one, am proud of my state's heritage as a dumping ground for undesirable natives.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

then we took this land away from them too lol

[close]

[benjipwns]

So was anyone flogged for six months? And what happened after those six months?

One justification for such
laws centered around white fears of combined black and Indian
hostilities. “This is a question of life and death to us in Oregon,”
wrote Samuel Thurston, Oregon’s delegate to Congress, in 1850.

The negroes associate with the Indians and intermarry, and, if
their free ingress is encouraged or allowed, there would a relationship
spring up between them and the different tribes, and
a mixed race would ensue inimical to the whites; and the Indians
being led on by the negro who is better acquainted with
the customs, language, and manners of the whites, than the
Indian, these savages would become much more formidable
than they otherwise would, and long and bloody wars would
be the fruits of the commingling of the races.

The constitutional convention
in Salem approved articles restricting blacks from military
service and from voting. Another provision granted
property rights equal to those of U.S. citizens only to white resident
foreigners. In addition, Chinese people who arrived in Oregon
after 1857 were to be prevented from owning real estate or
holding or working a mining claim.
...
6 A provision to exclude “free negroes” was seriously considered,
with one delegate moving to bar the Chinese as well.
Although this amendment did not pass, many delegates supported
it, including Chief Justice Williams, who urged his colleagues
to “consecrate Oregon to the use of the white man, and
exclude the negro, Chinaman, and every race of that
character.”37

Eventually, the delegates decided to submit the exclusion issue
directly to the electorate, along with a referendum on slavery. In
November 1857, Oregon voters approved the proposed constitution,
rejected slavery (by a vote of 7727 to 2645), and excluded
free blacks and “mulattoes” (by a vote of 8640 to 1081).38 As
one commentator noted, Oregonians had “no relish for the peculiar
institution” of slavery, but they desired less to mingle with
free blacks because “we were building a new state on virgin
ground; its people believed it should encourage only the best elements
to come to us.”39 Oregon joined the union, in 1859,40 as
the only state ever admitted with a black exclusion clause in its
constitution.41

0. In 1845, the provisional government also levied a
tax on employers for every Hawaiian worker who came into the Oregon Territory

an 1854 procedure code prohibited
blacks and Indians from testifying in any action brought by or against whites

[Himu]

Cool, should we start a “Bleeding Kansas” thread, and a “UTAH: WTF?” one as well?

I, for one, am proud of my state's heritage as a dumping ground for undesirable natives.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

then we took this land away from them too lol

[close]

Since it's black history month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

The thing is, that really isn't a fact.

It isn't?

[Great Rumbler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

I've read that Wikipedia article before and it's depressing as hell. 35 city blocks destroyed, 39 [at least] people killed...all because a black guy touched a white woman.

[benjipwns]

There's a good documentary about it but I can't remember the name. (Probably something with "Tulsa" and "Riot" in it. Maybe the Cinemax one listed on the wiki page.) But it interviews people, etc. And at one point they're interviewing someone who was part of the attacking blacks, burning down their houses, etc. and why he did it and stuff (this is like 60 years later or more, so he's old) and he's just kinda dumbfounded "I don't know, it's what you did."

I always thought it was dumb to have another 45 minutes or whatever of documentary after it.