> Thought I'd share this little anectdote from yesterday's American Literature class:
>
> While discussing William Wells Brown's _Clotel_, the conversation naturally progressed to the American slave trade, and why it thrived for as long as it did, the nature of enslavement, the concept of the social "other", and why it was/is so easy to dehumanize this "other.
>
> The professor started on a tangent regarding the Native Americans, and the first settlers' opinion of them. He then posed the question "Why did the settlers not enslave the Native Americans?"
>
> Among other ridiculous answers were these two gems:
>
> "Because they wouldn't have made good slaves. Indians are thin and weak."
>
> and...
>
> "Because they wouldn't have worked as hard as other slaves. Indians are lazy."
>
> Each of these responses were followed by a look of fright on the professor's face (though surprisingly few students shared his expression). He asked "Where did you learn that?" And they each confidently replied: "In high school."
>
> Now, I went to an white, conservative, relatively culturally-insensitive high school, and even *I* was never taught such trash. So now I'm wondering, where is this sort of thing professed?
>
> This all, by the way, took place in a so-called upper-level course at a major university.
>
> Gr"somewhat frightened"ace

Hmmm. In high school, I was taught pretty much the exact opposite -- that the Indians were defiant, matched their strength and wits against the would-be slavers, and had the "home court advantage". That is, they were skilled woodsmen, knew the land, and could easily escape and disappear forever. Not so for the Africans who were shipped over and had no place to run even if they did manage to escape. (Howard made similar points in his own post, which should also be read.) At any rate, I can see how your professor would be dismayed at the responses from his class.

Iss "Props to Don Goodwin, a first-rate high school history teacher" achar