The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Quid est Veritas?]

Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing | Police Studies Online

How the U.S. Got Its Police Force

American police evolved from Slave patrols and Plantation police... I meant exactly what I said.

So all modern police forces descend in some way from Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police. The northern US (Free States) formed them directly based on their example, and the Southern were reconstituted after Reconstruction also based on this example. So I am sure the usages of Slave Patrols played a part in the development of the US Police, but this is only a part of the story, and a direct evolution I find doubtful. This sounds more like another narrative, exaggerating one aspect and downplaying others. I'll read your links at some point and have a look if I agree or not.

 

[Kaon]

So all modern police forces descend in some way from Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police. The northern US (Free States) formed them directly based on their example, and the Southern were reconstituted after Reconstruction also based on this example. So I am sure the usages of Slave Patrols played a part in the development of the US Police, but this is only a part of the story, and a direct evolution I find doubtful. This sounds more like another narrative, exaggerating one aspect and downplaying others. I'll read your links at some point and have a look if I agree or not.

You made this statement before you read the links...

Thank you for admitting it, at least. I appreciate the honesty and attempt.

 

[Radagast]

So all modern police forces descend in some way from Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police.

And I'm sure that the modern NYPD does indeed owe more to the "Peelers" of London than to the neighbourhood militias of Amsterdam. I was making the point, though, that history goes back further than most people think.

One might also add that some uniquely American law enforcement agencies in the West (like the Texas Rangers) had a substantial military influence.

The "evolved from slave patrols" narrative is, in my view, wildly exaggerated, and not supported by serious literature.

 

[Kaon]

For those with eyes to see...

The slave patrols consisted of citizens who regulated the activity of slaves as their civic obligation for pay, rewards, or exemption from other duties. Unlike the watches, constables, and sheriffs who had some nonpolicing duties, the slave patrols operated solely for the enforcement of colonial and State laws. The existence of these patrols shows that important events occurred in the rural South before and concurrently with events in the urban North that are more typically cited in examples of the evolution of policing in the United States. In addition, the patrols show that modern policing is not simply a formalization of previously informal activities. Instead, modern policing seems to have passed through developmental stages that can be explained by typologies such as that of Lundman, who described informal, transitional, and modern types of policing.
​

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

​

Slave patrols formally dissolved after the Civil War ended. But formerly enslaved people were subject to Black Codes.

Immediately after the Civil War ended, Southern states enacted "black codes" that allowed African Americans certain rights, such as legalized marriage, ownership of property, and limited access to the courts, but denied them the rights to testify against whites, to serve on juries or in state militias, vote, or start a job without the approval of the previous employer. These codes were all repealed in 1866 when Reconstruction began.

But after the failure of Reconstruction in 1877, and the removal of black men from political offices, Southern states again enacted a series of laws intended to circumscribe the lives of African Americans. Harsh contract laws penalized anyone attempting to leave a job before an advance had been worked off. “Pig Laws” unfairly penalized poor African Americans for crimes such as stealing a farm animal. And vagrancy statutes made it a crime to be unemployed. Many misdemeanors or trivial offenses were treated as felonies, with harsh sentences and fines.
​

https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/black-codes/

The birth and development of the American police can be traced to a multitude of historical, legal and political-economic conditions. The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing. Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities.

For example, New England settlers appointed Indian Constables to police Native Americans (National Constable Association, 1995), the St. Louis police were founded to protect residents from Native Americans in that frontier city, and many southern police departments began as slave patrols.

In 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the nation's first slave patrol. Slave patrols helped to maintain the economic order and to assist the wealthy landowners in recovering and punishing slaves who essentially were considered property.
​

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing | Police Studies Online

 

[Chesterton]

In one study, 44% of Europeans could locate Syria on a map, but only 28% of Americans.

Also, 39% of Europeans could locate Nigeria on a map, but only 23% of Americans.

And even in terms of locating US states, Americans do surprisingly poorly.

Well I was feeling a bit better after yesterday's rant, and now this happens.

This is something that bugs me no end. I hear it all the time. Why geography? I don't wish to offend any geographer who may read this, but why harp on the least important subject there is? Can the average Syrian pick out Texas? Does he need to? Like the Syrian, I have this thing called a "life". I wake up around sunrise and go to sleep around 10. Ask me how many times during that period I need to know where Syria is. ZERO times! I know where my friends and family are. I know where my work and my church and the grocery store are. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW! What other trivia should I be ashamed of not knowing? The population of Niger? The average elevation of Lichtenstein?

To paraphrase a well-known CF'er, Geography Can Take A Hike!

 

[Chesterton]

What I mean with popular heroes of expansion is not just people like Lewis and Clark, or Custer; but people like Wyatt Earp, the romantic popular idea of the Cowboy, the Homesteader, the Lawman of the West, etc. Don't US towns hold like Founder's Day parades and the like?

Before I reply, I just want to be clear. I initially thought you meant people actually playing a role in expanding, like acquiring territory, but you mean anyone notable for any reason who lived during the expansion era?

 

[Chesterton]

I got into what turned into quite a heated debate over the common (as far as I’ve been able to find out) use of slave labour in Ancient African cultures, like Egypt, with someone who insisted that the pyramids etc were built by willing volunteers.

Egyptology currently thinks the Pyramids weren't built primarily by slave labour, but by the semi-free peasantry of Egypt during periods where they weren't needed for agriculture.

 

[Chesterton]

Let me give you an example: Winston Churchill and the Bengal famine. Case in point - Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum'

So Churchill is termed racist and blamed for the Bengal famine, but let us not forget that Churchill played an important part in stopping the victory of the most racist regime on the planet. In 1943 stopping the Japanese advance into India required breaking down internal transport, in denial of the enemy. This, along with natural causes, helped precipitate the famine, but the British never tried to starve the Indians. Churchill tried to negotiate American ships to bring Australian grain, only for Roosevelt to refuse. In the end, winning the war took precedence; as Churchill said winning would also help bring a close to the shortages in India. It was a difficult decision, and the British still shipped as much food as they could without too much impact on the war effort, but now this is used to cement some view of Churchill as a callous racist. It is true Churchill was not fond of Indian self-rule, and thought (rightly it turned out) that Partition and a rush to Dominion status would result in a bloodbath.

So now a man who spent years opposing, and was instrumental in defeating, a regime that literally incinerated people they thought inferior races, now has his statue defaced in the name of racial equality. Not to mention Churchill's general benevolent view of Empire, in which he opposed the attempts to separate non-whites that the Americans tried to do, supported the Cape Franchise, opposed the extreme violence of colonial forces in Natal in 1906,etc. By modern standards, certainly a racist - but by the standards of his own time; where Kitchener played polo with heads of Mahdists in the Sudan, and the Germans collected heads in Tanzania, and the Belgians had a zoo of Congolese and lobbed off their hands and feet; he was a liberal supporter of humanity. True he believed in the White Man's Burden, but he envisioned all the colonies eventually transitioning into a brotherhood of nations, regardless of skin colour. He disliked Hindus, but he had admiration for the so-called Martial races of Gurkha, Rajputs, and Sikhs, etc.

We are replacing the Finest Hour Greatest Briton with another narrative, and while the former was by no means objective, the latter seems even less so. For all his faults, Churchill did far more for racial equality than he did to oppose it; probably more than the majority of people in history.

Excellent post. Long before the war started, Churchill was condemning the Nazi's racism (racialism, as he called it). But these people in the streets have as much interest in thinking and reasoning as a tiger has in reading a book.

 

[agapelove]

Let me give you an example: Winston Churchill and the Bengal famine. Case in point - Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum'

So Churchill is termed racist and blamed for the Bengal famine, but let us not forget that Churchill played an important part in stopping the victory of the most racist regime on the planet. In 1943 stopping the Japanese advance into India required breaking down internal transport, in denial of the enemy. This, along with natural causes, helped precipitate the famine, but the British never tried to starve the Indians. Churchill tried to negotiate American ships to bring Australian grain, only for Roosevelt to refuse. In the end, winning the war took precedence; as Churchill said winning would also help bring a close to the shortages in India. It was a difficult decision, and the British still shipped as much food as they could without too much impact on the war effort, but now this is used to cement some view of Churchill as a callous racist. It is true Churchill was not fond of Indian self-rule, and thought (rightly it turned out) that Partition and a rush to Dominion status would result in a bloodbath.

So now a man who spent years opposing, and was instrumental in defeating, a regime that literally incinerated people they thought inferior races, now has his statue defaced in the name of racial equality. Not to mention Churchill's general benevolent view of Empire, in which he opposed the attempts to separate non-whites that the Americans tried to do, supported the Cape Franchise, opposed the extreme violence of colonial forces in Natal in 1906,etc. By modern standards, certainly a racist - but by the standards of his own time; where Kitchener played polo with heads of Mahdists in the Sudan, and the Germans collected heads in Tanzania, and the Belgians had a zoo of Congolese and lobbed off their hands and feet; he was a liberal supporter of humanity. True he believed in the White Man's Burden, but he envisioned all the colonies eventually transitioning into a brotherhood of nations, regardless of skin colour. He disliked Hindus, but he had admiration for the so-called Martial races of Gurkha, Rajputs, and Sikhs, etc.

We are replacing the Finest Hour Greatest Briton with another narrative, and while the former was by no means objective, the latter seems even less so. For all his faults, Churchill did far more for racial equality than he did to oppose it; probably more than the majority of people in history.

Yes, I am aware of the controversy that's been surrounding Churchill's character for a long time now. I'm sympathetic to both sides. While I am no way saying he was solely responsible for triggering the famine, his racist attitudes and genuine antipathy led him to make decisions that prolonged human suffering and aggravated the death toll. Instead of protecting the Indian public from the resultant food shortage, Churchill insisted that India absorb this loss and, further, continue to export rice to other countries. 3 million people are estimated to have died. This is going back to what I meant with whitewashing history, where the plights of nonwhite people are always overshadowed by the positive achievements of white people. Ending fascism in Europe was worth starving Indian people, Manifest Destiny was worth slaughtering Native Americans, preserving the southern economy was worth enslaving African Americans.

By no means do I think we should erase Churchill's far-reaching achievements, but moving his statue to a museum doesn't sound like an extreme measure. If anything it's our most objective option. Churchill's controversy goes a little deeper than the fact that King was sexist or that Lincoln was also racist. The two extreme narratives would be that either he was a racist or he was the Greatest Briton. I think most sensible people would agree that the former narrative is not going to stick, but it's brought up again and again so that we might move towards a more compromising middle.

 

[agapelove]

I'd like to see a lot less of "this is how you are supposed to think about history," and a lot more primary sources.

Lies My Teacher Told Me, how American history can be used as a weapon

The biggest lies we still teach in American history classes

How History Classes Helped Create a "Post-Truth" America

Whitewashing Our Past: A Proposal for a National Campaign to Rethink Textbooks

Why can't we teach slavery right in American schools?

 

[JackRT]

You might think that the history of a war fought 200 years ago might be fairly cut and dried but just examine the histories of the War of 1812 written from both the American and Canadian perspectives. You might wonder if they were speaking of the same events.

 

[Chesterton]

I read his appreciation of the King James Bible, and found him a bit pompous and not at all very objective. I agree though that some writing is simply 'better' in some sense, but I would rather look for it in the division between Imagination and Fancy made by Coleridge. The former creates meaning, the latter merely regurgitates; in a facile simplification.

Though I can't explain why, I agree that some things are simply better, and I think in some cases that explains that thing that goes by the name the Mandela Effect. For example, the actress who gave that speech which was memorable for being embarrassing - everyone will quote the exact words as "You like me, you really like me!" I think those words for some reason are "better" than what she actually said.

I think on the sensory level this wouldn't be much disputed. Some individuals will prefer the taste of chocolate over vanilla, some vanilla over chocolate, but I doubt anyone would prefer the taste of pinto beans over either of those (though I happen to like pinto beans). If you asked 100 people their favorite color, I'd be surprised if more than one oddball answered "gray" or "brown". Most people would prefer the smell of lavender over sulphur, and the feel of silk over sandpaper. Maybe there's some higher lever of appreciation of quality in the mind that applies to things above the sensory level, but I guess it's as difficult to explain good and bad literature as it is to explain good and bad colors.

 

[coffee4u]

In one study, 44% of Europeans could locate Syria on a map, but only 28% of Americans.

Also, 39% of Europeans could locate Nigeria on a map, but only 23% of Americans.

And even in terms of locating US states, Americans do surprisingly poorly.

Well to give them their due, they do have a lot of states.

And while I know Youtube videos are not the sum of knowledge in the US, the person asked which hemisphere Australia was in could not even get that right, let alone Nigeria.

As a homeschooler I took a full year on an area, America, UK, Asia, Africa. even a year is pushing it. When we did America I spent 3 months on native history and 3 on black history. The American's on the homeschooling board told me that schools there didn't cover native history and that black history is given a nod. 'black history month' So if they are not doing the world, or even their own continent, what are they doing?

 

[coffee4u]

No, I don't think they are Australian-centric, but the general history knowledge is not as high as Europeans (in my experience). I like history and get frequent foreign doctors visiting us here, and try and talk about it with them.

We had a couple of Australians and the one had a jacket blazoned with the Eureka stockade flag. So I asked him if he was a Republican on account of it, to a blank stare. He said no, he just likes how it looks, after it was explained to him. His companion then said "that is such an Aussie thing to say". I know this is just anecdotal, but I have never gotten a deep sense of investment in history.

Why would he be 'a Republican'? That's an American thing. If you asked me if I was a 'Republican' you would throw me too. Apart from not using that word, a lot of us are swinging voters without strong loyalties.
Our two main political parties are Labour and Liberal.
Although he should know about the Eureka stockade. But yes saying he simply liked it, is a very Aussie thing to say.

 

[Radagast]

Why would he be 'a Republican'?

I presume he meant "Republican" as in "wanting a Republic."

 

[coffee4u]

I presume he meant "Republican" as in "wanting a Republic."

Oh that, well I'm from Queensland, we are the 'real Australia' as we like to say, and we vote no to everything.
These days with Trump at the helm, I tend to think Republican is referring to US politics. Never gave two hoots before.

 

[Radagast]

Why geography? I don't wish to offend any geographer who may read this, but why harp on the least important subject there is?

It's important to know about the rest of the planet. The United States has been fighting in Syria for quite a while now; you should know where it is.

 

[Radagast]

Oh that, well I'm from Queensland, we are the 'real Australia' as we like to say

I thought you had seceded? Certainly you've still got great big concrete barriers on the highway.

 

[Chesterton]

It's important to know about the rest of the planet.

Why?

The United States has been fighting in Syria for quite a while now; you should know where it is.

The United States have been fighting. I have not. And I'd prefer they didn't.

 

[Radagast]

Why?

Why should you know about the rest of the planet?

You affect them. They affect you. You have Orthodox brothers and sisters in many places, and you should be praying for them.