The southern economy was set apart from the world around it because it was based on

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show How did the economies of the North and South differ during the war quizlet? Why did slavery play a larger role in driving economic expansion in the Southern colonies than those further North? How did the agricultural system in the North and South differ? Which of the following statements is true of the South's economy during the 1800s?

In this section, you'll find resources to expand your understanding and knowledge of the related interactivity: a summary of important concepts, an in-depth discussion of select questions, and Teaching Tips for educators.

Click below to view a print-friendly version of the timeline sorted by theme:

• Explore "Race, Science and Social Policy"

• Explore "The Evolution of an Idea"

• Explore "Changing Definitions"

• Explore "Different Rules for Whites"

• Explore "In Search of Equality"

Click below to view a print-friendly version of the timeline sorted by date:

• Explore "Before 1787"

• Explore "1790-1854"

• Explore "1857-1904"

• Explore "1905-1935"

• Explore "1950-2000"
  

Race is a modern idea - it hasn't always been with us. In ancient times, language, religion, status, and class distinctions were more important than physical appearance. In America, a set of specific historical circumstances led to the world's first race-based slave system.

The concept of race did not originate with science. On the contrary, science emerged in the late 18th century and helped validate existing racial ideas and "prove" a natural hierarchy of groups. Throughout our history, the search for racial differences has been fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority. Even today, scientists are influenced by their social context.

Ideas and definitions of race have changed over time, depending on social and political climate. Historically, racial categories were not neutral or objective. Groups were differentiated so they could be excluded or disadvantaged, often in explicit ways. For example, in the early 20th century, U.S. courts had to decide who was legally white and who wasn't for the purposes of naturalized citizenship. This was done in arbitrary and sometimes contradictory ways.

Groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans have played a significant role in shaping American society. Many of the freedoms we take for granted were fought for and won by those who were originally excluded by discriminatory laws and practices. In struggling for their own inclusion, nonwhites have guaranteed fair treatment and equal rights for everyone.

Which came first - slavery or race?

Throughout human history, societies have enslaved others due to conquest, war or debt, but not based on physical difference. The word "slave" in fact comes from "Slav": prisoners of Slavonic tribes captured by Germans and sold to Arabs during the Middle Ages. Prior to the Enlightenment, slavery was simply a fact of life, unquestioned. Race, on the other hand, is a much more recent idea, tied up with the founding of the U.S.

In colonial America, our early economy was based largely on slavery. When the new concept of freedom was introduced during the American Revolution, it created a moral contradiction: how could a nation that proclaimed equality and the natural rights of man hold slaves? The idea of race helped resolve the contradiction by setting Africans apart. The notion of natural Black inferiority helped our founding fathers justify denying slaves the rights and entitlements that others took for granted.

Later, as the abolitionist movement gained popularity and attacks on slavery grew, so did arguments in its defense. Slavery was no longer explained as a necessary evil, but justified as a positive good. The rationale for slavery was so strong that after emancipation, ideas of innate inferiority and superiority not only persisted but were intensified.

For more on this topic, look in the Background Readings section.

Were Africans enslaved because they were thought to be inferior?

In colonial America, Africans weren't enslaved because they were thought to be inferior. On the contrary, they were valued for their skill as farmers and desired for their labor. Planters had previously tried enslaving Native Americans, but many escaped and hid among neighboring tribes or were stricken by diseases brought to the New World by Europeans.

In the early years of the colonies, the majority of workers were poor indentured servants from England. In fact, during Virginia's first century, 100,000 of the 130,000 Englishmen who crossed the Atlantic were indentured servants. Conditions of servitude were miserable, and nearly two thirds died before their term of indenture ended. After several decades, African slaves began arriving in the U.S. and worked side by side with indentured servants. Many played together, intermarried, and ran away together. Racial categories were fluid, and slavery was not yet codified into law.

In the mid-17th century, a crisis arose in the colonies. As economic conditions in Mother England improved, the number of volunteers willing to journey across the Atlantic to endure such harsh treatment dropped dramatically, causing a labor shortage. At the same time, tension and hostilities were mounting domestically, as more servants were surviving their indenture and demanding land from the planter elite. The entire plantation labor system and colonial social hierarchy was threatened; the situation came to a head when poor servants and slaves allied and attacked the elite classes during Bacon's Rebellion.

After the system of indentured servitude proved unstable, planters turned increasingly to African slavery and began writing laws to divide Blacks from whites. Coincidentally, African slaves became more available at this time. Poor whites were given new entitlements and opportunities, including as overseers to police the slave population. Over time, they began to identify more with wealthy whites, and the degradation of slavery became identified more and more with Blackness.

Go to the For Teachers section of this site for a lesson plan on the emergence of a racial ideology in Jamestown.

How was the racial idea expanded to include other groups?

Imbued with a new validity by scientists, race evolved into the "common-sense" wisdom of white America by the middle of the 19th century. It was invoked not only to justify the enslavement of Africans, but also the taking of Mexican and Indian lands, the exclusion of Asian immigrants, and eventually, the acquisition of overseas territories such as the Philippine Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico. Racial superiority was seen not only as "natural" and inevitable but a moral responsibility for whites. The notions of Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden best capture this ideology of "civilization" and racial difference.

Ideas of racial inferiority have been institutionalized - both explicitly and implicitly - within our laws, government, and public policies. Not surprisingly, racial definitions have also changed over time, depending on the political context. They have also been arbitrary and inconsistent from group to group.

Mexicans, for example, were classified as white until 1930, when nativists lobbied successfully for them to be classified separately in order to target them for discrimination and emphasize their distinctness from whites. Historically, African Americans in the Jim Crow South were classified according to "blood" ancestry, but the amount (one quarter, one sixteenth, one drop) varied from state to state, which meant that, as historian James Horton points out, "you could cross a state line and literally, legally change race."

Since the 19th century, Native Americans have been defined in terms opposite those defining African Americans. Rather than the "one-drop" rule, a minimum "blood quantum" requirement has been the standard for tribal membership and racial classification. Historically, membership in many Native American tribes was based on acceptance of tribal language, customs, and authority, not "blood" degree. Escaped slaves, whites and other Indians were able to join tribes and be accepted as full members. However, in the 1930s, tribes wanting federal recognition were forced to follow government guidelines, including membership based upon "blood" degree. A 1991 Bureau of Indian Affairs inventory of 155 federally recognized tribes in 48 states showed that 4 out of 5 condition membership on proof of blood, ranging in amount from 1/2 to 1/64th.

Since the Civil Rights era, we are faced with the conundrum of having arbitrary racial categories which nevertheless reflect real social experiences and are necessary to track and remedy discrimination. As we grapple with what to do about race, it's useful to understand the historical circumstances and historical meanings surrounding the concept.

The Resources section of this Web site contains a wealth of information about issues related to race. There you'll find detailed information about books, organizations, film/videos, and other Web sites. For more about this topic, search under "origins of race," "slavery," "African American" or "race science." You can also read related online articles in the Background Readings section of this site.

1. Think about the race categories we are familiar with today. When did they first appear? Are they the same as the categories that were used 100 years ago, 200 years ago? Compare the categories with events from the same time period: what else is happening? How does the evolution of categories reflect changing social attitudes or historical events?
2. In our film, historian James Horton says that because different states defined race differently, "You could walk across a state line and literally, legally change race." Research the history of the one-drop rule for African ancestry. Compare the definitions and percentages used by different states or compare the definitions used over time by a state like Virginia. What do these different definitions suggest about the origin of our ideas?
3. Although we think of African Americans as having dark skin, it's not unusual to meet African Americans who are very light-complected. Many are much lighter than people from southern Europe, like Greeks or Portguese, or from southern India, like the Dravidians. Why do we classify light-skinned African Americans as Black but dark-skinned Greeks as white and dark-skinned Indians as Asian?
4. Terms like "full blood" and "half blood" still exist in our vernacular. Today, many American Indians must meet a set of criteria in order to qualify for benefits - these are based upon minimum "blood quantum" - proving that one has recent and direct Indian ancestry. Many tribes have adopted this as the basis for their own membership. This is the opposite of how we have classified Blacks. What are some reasons why these groups would be classified in these ways - essentially maximizing the number of Blacks and minimizing the number of Native Americans? What are the pitfalls of using these criteria?
5. What does it mean to say that race justified social inequalities as natural? Select some examples from the timeline that illustrate how race was used as a "cover up" to deflect attention away from inequality.
6. How is race an ideology rather than a biological reality? Using examples from the timeline, illustrate how race is socially constructed.
7. Historian Hyman Alterman has written: "It was not an accident that in the census of 1930, persons of Mexican birth or ancestry were classified as 'nonwhite.' This was a policy decision, not a mistake." What are some reasons why we might change the way we classify a group of people? What is the effect of being classified differently?
8. How has the function of racial categories changed since the Civil Rights era? Some historians claim that census categories, for example, counted nonwhites in order to count them out - to target them for discrimination or exclusion. Is that still true today? Does racial classification serve different purposes now?

For complete lesson plans, visit the FOR TEACHERS section of this Web site.